One of the goals of open science is to promote the transparency and accessibility of research. Sharing data and materials used in network research is critical to these goals. In this paper, we present recommendations for whether, what, when, and where network data and materials should be shared. We recommend that network data and materials should be shared, but access to or use of shared data and materials may be restricted if necessary to avoid harm or comply with regulations. Researchers should share the network data and materials necessary to reproduce reported results via a publicly accessible repository when an associated manuscript is published. To ensure the adoption of these recommendations, network journals should require sharing, and network associations and academic institutions should reward sharing.

Public agencies routinely collect administrative data that, when shared and integrated, can form a rich picture of the health and well-being of the communities they serve. One major challenge is that these datasets are often siloed within individual agencies or programs and using them effectively presents legal, technical, and cultural obstacles. This article describes work led by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) with support from university-based researchers to establish enterprise-wide data governance and a legal framework for routine data sharing, toward the goal of increased capacity for integrated data analysis, improved policy and practice, and better health outcomes for North Carolinians. We relied on participatory action research (PAR) methods and Deliberative Dialogue to engage a diverse range of stakeholders in the co-creation of a data governance process and legal framework for routine data sharing in NCDHHS. Four key actions were taken as a result of the participatory research process: NCDHHS developed a data strategy road map, created a data sharing guidebook to operationalize legal and ethical review of requests, staffed the Data Office, and implemented a legal framework. In addition to describing how these ongoing streams of work support data use across a large state health and human services agency, we provide three use cases demonstrating the impact of this work. This research presents a successful, actionable, and replicable framework for developing and implementing processes to support intradepartmental data access, integration, and use.

Enabling private sector trust stands as a critical policy challenge for the success of the EU Data Governance Act and Data Act in promoting data sharing to address societal challenges. This paper attributes the widespread trust deficit to the unmanageable uncertainty that arises from businesses’ limited usage control to protect their interests in the face of unacceptable perceived risks. For example, a firm may hesitate to share its data with others in case it is leaked and falls into the hands of business competitors. To illustrate this impasse, competition, privacy, and reputational risks are introduced, respectively, in the context of three suboptimal approaches to data sharing: data marketplaces, data collaboratives, and data philanthropy. The paper proceeds by analyzing seven trust-enabling mechanisms comprised of technological, legal, and organizational elements to balance trust, risk, and control and assessing their capacity to operate in a fair, equitable, and transparent manner. Finally, the paper examines the regulatory context in the EU and the advantages and limitations of voluntary and mandatory data sharing, concluding that an approach that effectively balances the two should be pursued.

As the federal government continues to expand upon and improve its data sharing policies over the past 20 years, complex challenges remain. Our interviews with U.S. academic genetic researchers (n=23) found that the burden, translation, industry limitations, and consent structure of data sharing remain major governance challenges.

The advent of smart and digital cities is bringing data to the forefront as a critical resource for addressing the multifaceted transitions faced by African cities from rapid urbanization to the climate crisis. However, this commentary highlights the formidable considerations that must be addressed to realize the potential of data-driven urban planning and management. We argue that data should be viewed as a tool, not a panacea, drawing from our experience in modeling and mapping the accessibility of transport systems in Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. We identify five key considerations, including data choice, imperfections, resource intensity, validation, and data market dynamics, and propose three actionable points for progress: local data sharing, centralized repositories, and capacity-building. While our focus is on Kumasi and Accra, the considerations discussed are relevant to cities across the African continent.

Public health authorities (PHAs), including Tribal nations, have the right and responsibility to protect and promote the health of their citizens. Although Tribal nations have the same need and legal authority to access public health data as any other PHA, significant legal challenges continue to impede Tribal data access.

Data on real-time individuals’ location may provide significant opportunities for managing emergency situations. For example, in the case of outbreaks, besides informing on the proximity of people, hence supporting contact tracing activities, location data can be used to understand spatial heterogeneity in virus transmission. However, individuals’ low consent to share their data, proved by the low penetration rate of contact tracing apps in several countries during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, re-opened the scientific and practitioners’ discussion on factors and conditions triggering citizens to share their positioning data. Following the Antecedents → Privacy Concerns → Outcomes (APCO) model, and based on Privacy Calculus and Reasoned Action Theories, the study investigates factors that cause university students to share their location data with public institutions during outbreaks. To this end, an explanatory survey was conducted in Italy during the second wave of COVID-19, collecting 245 questionnaire responses. Structural equations modeling was used to contemporary investigate the role of trust, perceived benefit, and perceived risk as determinants of the intention to share location data during outbreaks. Results show that respondents’ trust in public institutions, the perceived benefits, and the perceived risk are significant predictor of the intention to disclose personal tracking data with public institutions. Results indicate that the latter two factors impact university students’ willingness to share data more than trust, prompting public institutions to rethink how they launch and manage the adoption process for these technological applications.

This article focuses on copyright issues pertaining to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with particular emphasis on the ChatGPT case study as a primary exemplar. In order to generate high-quality outcomes, generative AI systems require substantial quantities of training data, which may frequently comprise copyright-protected information. This prompts inquiries into the legal principles of fair use, the creation of derivative works and the lawfulness of data gathering and utilisation. The utilisation of input data for the purpose of training and enhancing AI models presents significant concerns regarding potential violations of copyright. This paper offers suggestions for safeguarding the interests of copyright holders and competitors, while simultaneously addressing legal challenges and expediting the advancement of AI technologies. This study analyses the ChatGPT platform as a case example to explore the necessary modifications that copyright regulations must undergo to adequately tackle the intricacies of authorship and ownership in the realm of AI-generated creative content.

Early in the pandemic, pre-print servers sped rapid evidence sharing. A collaborative of major medical journals supported their use to ensure equitable access to scientific advancements. In the intervening three years, we have made major advancements in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and learned about the benefits and limitations of pre-prints as a mechanism for sharing and disseminating scientific knowledge.

Pre-prints increase attention, citations, and ultimately impact policy, often before findings are verified. Evidence suggests that pre-prints have more spin relative to peer-reviewed publications. Clinical trial findings posted on pre-print servers do not change substantially following peer-review, but other study types (e.g., modeling and observational studies) often undergo substantial revision or are never published.

Nuanced policies about sharing results are needed to balance rapid implementation of true and important advancements with accuracy. Policies recommending immediate posting of COVID-19-related research should be re-evaluated, and standards for evaluation and sharing of unverified studies should be developed. These may include specifications about what information is included in pre-prints and requirements for certain data quality standards (e.g., automated review of images and tables); requirements for code release and sharing; and limiting early postings to methods, results, and limitations sections.

Academic publishing needs to innovate and improve, but assessments of evidence quality remains a critical part of the scientific discovery and dissemination process.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the irrational use of drugs in the absence of clinical management guidelines. Access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials aids the evidence synthesis approaches. We undertook a rapid review to infer IPD sharing intentions based on data availability statements by the principal investigators (PIs) of drug and vaccine trials in the context of COVID-19.

Searches were conducted on PubMed (NCBI). We considered randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. IPD sharing intentions were inferred based on the data availability statements in the full-text manuscript publications. We included 180 articles. Of these, 81.7% (147/180) of the publications have arrived from the findings of the RCTs alone, 12.8% (23/180) of the publications were protocol publications alone, and 5.6% (10/180) of the RCTs had both published protocol and publication from the trial findings. We have reported IPD sharing intentions separately in RCT protocol publications (n = 23 + 10) and publications from RCT findings (n = 147 + 10). Among RCT protocol publications, one-third (11/33) of the PIs intended to share IPD. In fact, over half of the PIs (52.2%, 82/157) in their published RCT findings intended to share IPD. However, information to share about IPD was missing for 57.6% (19/33) of RCT protocols and 38.2% (60/157) of published RCT findings.

Stakeholders must work together to ensure that overarching factors, such as legislation that governs clinical trial practices, are streamlined to bolster IPD sharing mechanisms.

Data sharing is a requisite for developing data-driven innovation and collaboration at the local scale. This paper aims to identify key lessons and recommendations for building trustworthy data governance at the local scale, including the public and private sectors. Our research is based on the experience gained in Rennes Metropole since 2010 and focuses on two thematic use cases: culture and energy. For each one, we analyzed how the power relations between actors and the local public authority shape the modalities of data sharing and exploitation. The paper will elaborate on challenges and opportunities at the local level, in perspective with the national and European frameworks.

This article provides a critical review of new policies in China, the United States, and the European Union that characterize genomic data as a national strategic resource. Specifically, we review policies that regulate human genomic data for economic, national security, or other strategic purposes rather than ethical or individual rights purposes.

No matter how good a smart device may be, it remains useless outside the context of a digital ecosystem. Internet of Things (IoT) environments are possible as long as services and products can interconnect smoothly and exchange data in real time. Therefore, interoperability ranks high in global policy agendas, with the promise of bringing an end to network effects slanted in favour of ecosystem orchestrators. However, recent regulatory initiatives introducing interoperability obligations risk falling short of their intent or even risk generating unintended consequences in the absence of a coherent approach to standardisation. Against this backdrop, focusing on the UK Open Banking experience, this article makes a proposal for workable interoperability in IoT ecosystems aimed at ensuring market contestability without undermining incentives to innovate.

Data sharing between housing and education agencies will provide housing agencies with resources to assist them with efforts to decrease segregation and mitigate the adverse health outcomes experienced by people of color. The Fair Housing Act has the potential to fulfill its original integrationist purpose if housing and education agencies combine resources and data to create and implement fair housing plans. The Biden Administration’s restored rule to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which seeks to reduce segregation and increase housing equity. However, it omits most of the processes set forth by the Obama Administration whereby federal agencies provide the proper tools to housing agencies so that they are able to make data-based decisions about housing policies. This article advocates for the sharing of data between housing and education agencies to optimize the positive impact of fair housing not only within housing, but also on the education, employment, and health opportunities for communities of color.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the importance of high-quality data for empirical health research and evidence-based political decision-making. To leverage the full potential of these data, a better understanding of the determinants and conditions under which people are willing to share their health data is critical. Building on the privacy theory of contextual integrity, the privacy calculus, and previous findings regarding different data types and recipients, we argue that established social norms shape the acceptance of novel practices of data collection and use. To investigate the willingness to share health data, we conducted a preregistered vignette experiment. The scenarios experimentally varied the vignette dimensions by data type, recipient, and research purpose. While some findings contradict our hypotheses, the results indicate that all three dimensions affected respondents’ data sharing decisions. Additional analyses suggest that institutional and social trust, privacy concerns, technical affinity, altruism, age, and device ownership influence the willingness to share health data.

The transition to open data practices is straightforward albeit surprisingly challenging to implement largely due to cultural and policy issues. A general data sharing framework is presented along with two case studies that highlight these challenges and offer practical solutions that can be adjusted depending on the type of data collected, the country in which the study is initiated, and the prevailing research culture. Embracing the constraints imposed by data privacy considerations, especially for biomedical data, must be emphasized for data outside of the United States until data privacy law(s) are established at the Federal and/or State level.