↓ Skip to main content

A game theoretic analysis of research data sharing

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
101 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A game theoretic analysis of research data sharing
Published in
PeerJ, September 2015
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1242
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tessa E. Pronk, Paulien H. Wiersma, Anne van Weerden, Feike Schieving

Abstract

While reusing research data has evident benefits for the scientific community as a whole, decisions to archive and share these data are primarily made by individual researchers. In this paper we analyse, within a game theoretical framework, how sharing and reuse of research data affect individuals who share or do not share their datasets. We construct a model in which there is a cost associated with sharing datasets whereas reusing such sets implies a benefit. In our calculations, conflicting interests appear for researchers. Individual researchers are always better off not sharing and omitting the sharing cost, at the same time both sharing and not sharing researchers are better off if (almost) all researchers share. Namely, the more researchers share, the more benefit can be gained by the reuse of those datasets. We simulated several policy measures to increase benefits for researchers sharing or reusing datasets. Results point out that, although policies should be able to increase the rate of sharing researchers, and increased discoverability and dataset quality could partly compensate for costs, a better measure would be to directly lower the cost for sharing, or even turn it into a (citation-) benefit. Making data available would in that case become the most profitable, and therefore stable, strategy. This means researchers would willingly make their datasets available, and arguably in the best possible way to enable reuse.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 53 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 12 20%
Librarian 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Professor 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 18%
Computer Science 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Other 19 32%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2020.
All research outputs
#501,305
of 26,402,896 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#519
of 15,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,242
of 280,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#15
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,402,896 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.