The Field-Specificity of Data Practices and the Public Sharing of Research Data (Part 1): Evidence from a Survey of Researchers at German Universities

Abstract Increasingly, researchers who receive public funding for their research are expected to make their research data publicly available. However, research fields differ in their epistemic practices and norms for publicly sharing research data. The strong variation by field is confirmed by our analysis of data from the DZHW Science Survey of 8,822 researchers at German Universities. Comparing 39 subfields across a wide range of disciplines we find substantial variation in the role of data for research, in the dependency of researchers on self-produced data versus third-party data, and the public sharing of research data. This includes variation within disciplines that is concealed when only a coarse field classification is used. We further examine statistical evidence for a link between data reuse and data sharing that was proposed by Khan et al. (2023). We find only limited support for such a link and rather support for the hypothesis that data sharing and data reuse behaviors are not causally linked, but instead reflections of shared epistemic practices, as suggested by Curty et al. (2017). From a science policy perspective our findings confirm the need for field-specific approaches to support the public sharing and the re-use of research data.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Quantitative Science Studies
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss.a.504
Primary Topic
Research Data Management Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Field-Specificity of Data Practices and the Public Sharing of Research Data (Part 1): Evidence from a Survey of Researchers at German Universities

Theresa Velden, Anastasiia Tcypina, Valmira Xharavina
Quantitative Science Studies
Research Data Management Practices
article

The Field-Specificity of Data Practices and the Public Sharing of Research Data (Part 1): Evidence from a Survey of Researchers at German Universities

Theresa Velden, Anastasiia Tcypina, Valmira Xharavina
article en

Abstract

Abstract Increasingly, researchers who receive public funding for their research are expected to make their research data publicly available. However, research fields differ in their epistemic practices and norms for publicly sharing research data. The strong variation by field is confirmed by our analysis of data from the DZHW Science Survey of 8,822 researchers at German Universities. Comparing 39 subfields across a wide range of disciplines we find substantial variation in the role of data for research, in the dependency of researchers on self-produced data versus third-party data, and the public sharing of research data. This includes variation within disciplines that is concealed when only a coarse field classification is used. We further examine statistical evidence for a link between data reuse and data sharing that was proposed by Khan et al. (2023). We find only limited support for such a link and rather support for the hypothesis that data sharing and data reuse behaviors are not causally linked, but instead reflections of shared epistemic practices, as suggested by Curty et al. (2017). From a science policy perspective our findings confirm the need for field-specific approaches to support the public sharing and the re-use of research data.

Quantitative Science Studies
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Research Data Management Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.