Biological Scientists' Data Sharing Survey

Principal Investigator(s):  View help for Principal Investigator(s) Youngseek Kim, University of Kentucky

Version:  View help for Version V1

Name File Type Size Last Modified
DataSharing-BioScience-680.csv 53.2 KB 07/26/2018 01:06:PM
Survey-Items-and-References.docx application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document 20.2 KB 07/26/2018 01:06:PM

Project Citation: 

Project Description

Summary:  View help for Summary This research examines the factors affecting biological scientists' data sharing. 
The online survey was conducted with the scientists who are registered as biological scientists in the CoS scholar database. Among 90 thousand scientists registered under the main discipline of biological sciences in the U.S., we randomly selected a total of 8,000 potential survey participants. Throughout the survey distribution, 2,014 messages were returned or were not delivered correctly due to invalid email addresses or spam filters. Therefore, a total of 5,986 messages were delivered to any potential survey participants. Among those responses, we excluded any responses missing more than 20% of answers in the online survey; therefore, we only have 680 valid responses.
 

Scope of Project

Subject Terms:  View help for Subject Terms biological science; data sharing
Geographic Coverage:  View help for Geographic Coverage United States
Time Period(s):  View help for Time Period(s) 11/2016 – 2/2017 (Fall 2016 to Spring 2017)
Collection Date(s):  View help for Collection Date(s) 11/2016 – 2/2017 (Fall 2016 to Spring 2017)
Universe:  View help for Universe
Biological scientists in U.S. academic institutions in late 2016 and early 2017
Data Type(s):  View help for Data Type(s) survey data
Collection Notes:  View help for Collection Notes The online survey was conducted with the scientists who are registered as biological scientists in the CoS scholar database. Among 90 thousand scientists registered under the main discipline of biological sciences in the U.S., we randomly selected a total of 8,000 potential survey participants. The first message with the survey link was distributed on early November 2016. Then, three reminders were distributed on late November and mid-December 2016 and late January 2017 (the final reminder). The online survey was closed on mid-February, 2017. Throughout the survey distribution, 2,014 messages were returned or were not delivered correctly due to invalid email addresses or spam filters. Therefore, a total of 5,986 messages were delivered to any potential survey participants. Among those responses, we excluded any responses missing more than 20% of answers in the online survey; therefore, we only have 680 valid responses.

Methodology

Response Rate:  View help for Response Rate A total of 5,986 messages were delivered to any potential survey participants. Among those responses, we excluded any responses missing more than 20% of answers in the online survey; therefore, we only have 680 valid responses. This indicates that an 11.36% response rate (680/5,986=0.1136). The response rate calculated based on the total survey was distributed via survey distribution system.
Sampling:  View help for Sampling We used the Community of Scientists’ (CoS) scholar database to randomly select potential survey participants. As of October 31, 2016 there were 90,574 biological scientists registered under the category of natural sciences (defined by CoS). The permission from the ProQuest Pivot, which owns the CoS scholar database, was sought before we selected the potential survey participants from its scholar database, and the IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval was obtained from the principal investigator’s academic institution. 
Data Source:  View help for Data Source Online survey with biological scientists in U.S. academic institutions
Collection Mode(s):  View help for Collection Mode(s) web-based survey
Scales:  View help for Scales This research employed 5-point Likert scales ranging from “Strongly Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Neither Disagree nor Agree”, “Agree”, and “Strongly Agree” for the most of items measuring biological scientists’ diverse perceptions toward data sharing. Each construct was measured with multiple items.
Weights:  View help for Weights No weight method was used.
Unit(s) of Observation:  View help for Unit(s) of Observation Individual
Geographic Unit:  View help for Geographic Unit U.S.

Related Publications

Download this project

Published Versions

V1 [2018-07-26]

Export Metadata

Dublin Core

DDI 2.5

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.