Calls in favour of Open Data in research are becoming overwhelming. They are at national [@RCKUOpen] and international levels [@Moedas2015, @RSOpen, @ams2016]. I will set out a working definition of Open Data and will discuss the key challenges preventing the publication of Open Data becoming standard practice. I will attempt to draw some general solutions to those challenges from field specific examples.

The documents contained in this dataset reflect NASA's comprehensive IT policy in compliance with Federal Government laws and regulations.

Data Access Governance Market Outlook

The global data access governance market size was valued at USD XX billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD XX billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of XX% during the forecast period. This impressive growth is driven by several factors, including increasing regulatory requirements, the proliferation of data breaches, and the growing need for enterprises to safeguard sensitive information.

One of the primary growth factors of the data access governance market is the stringent regulatory landscape. Governments and regulatory bodies across the world are enforcing stricter data protection laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States. These regulations mandate organizations to maintain stringent controls over their data access policies and ensure that only authorized personnel can access sensitive information. As a result, businesses are increasingly adopting data access governance solutions to comply with these regulations and avoid hefty fines and reputational damage.

Another compelling growth driver is the alarming rise in data breaches and cyber threats. With the increasing digitalization of business operations, cybercriminals are finding new ways to infiltrate organizational networks and steal sensitive data. High-profile data breaches have underscored the importance of robust data access governance strategies to prevent unauthorized access and mitigate risks. Companies are now prioritizing investments in advanced data access governance technologies to safeguard their data assets and maintain customer trust.

The growing volume of data generated by businesses is also fueling the demand for data access governance solutions. As organizations collect and store vast amounts of data, managing and securing this information becomes more complex. Data access governance tools help businesses effectively manage and control access to their data, ensuring that it is only available to authorized users. This not only enhances data security but also improves operational efficiency by minimizing the risks associated with data misuse and ensuring compliance with data protection standards.

From a regional perspective, North America is expected to dominate the data access governance market during the forecast period, owing to the presence of major technology companies and stringent data protection regulations. Asia Pacific is anticipated to exhibit the highest growth rate, driven by the rapid digital transformation of businesses and increasing awareness about data security. Europe is also a significant market, given its comprehensive regulatory framework and strong focus on data protection. Other regions like Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are gradually catching up, with businesses increasingly adopting data access governance solutions to enhance their data security posture.

Component Analysis

The data access governance market is segmented into software and services by component. The software segment encompasses various tools and solutions designed to manage and secure data access within an organization. This includes access control software, identity management solutions, and data loss prevention tools. The increasing adoption of these software solutions is driven by the need to automate data access governance processes and enhance the efficiency of data management tasks. Additionally, the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies in these solutions is further boosting their effectiveness in identifying and mitigating potential security threats.

The services segment in the data access governance market includes a range of professional and managed services aimed at helping organizations implement and maintain robust data access governance frameworks. Professional services encompass consulting, system integration, and training services, which are essential for the successful deployment and optimization of data access governance solutions. Managed services, on the other hand, involve ongoing monitoring and management of data access governance tools by third-party service providers. The growing complexity of data access management and the lack of in-house expertise are driving the demand for these services, as businesses seek external support to ensure effective data governance.

Within the software segment, access control solutions are particularly crucial for organizations to enforce strict data access policies. These solutions enable bus

This data is a dump from ROARMAP [http://roarmap.eprints.org/] taken in June 2015.

ROARMAP is the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies, a searchable international registry charting the growth of open access mandates and policies adopted by universities, research institutions and research funders that require or request their researchers to provide open access to their peer-reviewed research article output by depositing it in an open access repository.

A number of fields have been added including country names, repository urls, continent etc.

The data is being used for a series of data visualisations [http://pasteur4oa-dataviz.okfn.org/] for the PATEUR4OA Project [http://pasteur4oa.eu/].

PASTEUR4OA (Open Access Policy Alignment Strategies for European Union Research) aims to support the European Commission’s Recommendation to Member States of July 2012 that they develop and implement policies to ensure Open Access to all outputs from publicly-funded research.

PASTEUR4OA will help develop and/or reinforce open access strategies and policies at the national level and facilitate their coordination among all Member States. It will build a network of centres of expertise in Member States that will develop a coordinated and collaborative programme of activities in support of policymaking at the national level under the direction of project partners.

The CEOS (Committee on Earth Observation Satellites) Data Policy Portal provides information about the data access policies of all CEOS Agency missions (satellites) and their associated instruments. It also provides links to client portals for data access.

How do the policy recommendations released by the European RECODE Project compare to similar Canadian efforts?

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a program of state-wide surveys of local government leaders in Michigan. The MPPS is designed to fill an important information gap in the policymaking process. While there are ongoing surveys of the business community and of the citizens of Michigan, before the MPPS there were no ongoing surveys of local government officials that were representative of all general purpose local governments in the state. Therefore, while we knew the policy priorities and views of the state's businesses and citizens, we knew very little about the views of the local officials who are so important to the economies and community life throughout Michigan.

The MPPS was launched in 2009 by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan and is conducted in partnership with the Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Municipal League, and Michigan Townships Association. The associations provide CLOSUP with contact information for the survey's respondents, and consult on survey topics. CLOSUP makes all decisions on survey design, data analysis, and reporting, and receives no funding support from the associations.

The surveys investigate local officials' opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues and solicit factual information about their localities relevant to policymaking. Over time, the program has covered issues such as fiscal, budgetary and operational policy, fiscal health, public sector compensation, workforce development, local-state governmental relations, intergovernmental collaboration, economic development strategies and initiatives such as placemaking and economic gardening, the role of local government in environmental sustainability, energy topics such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and wind power, trust in government, views on state policymaker performance, opinions on the impacts of the Federal Stimulus Program (ARRA), and more. The program will investigate many other issues relevant to local and state policy in the future. A searchable database of every question the MPPS has asked is available on CLOSUP's website. Results of MPPS surveys are currently available as reports, and via online data tables.

Out of a commitment to promoting public knowledge of Michigan local governance, the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy is releasing public use datasets. In order to protect respondent confidentiality, CLOSUP has divided the data collected in each wave of the survey into separate datasets focused on different topics that were covered in the survey. Each dataset contains only variables relevant to that subject, and the datasets cannot be linked together. Variables have also been omitted or recoded to further protect respondent confidentiality. For researchers looking for a more extensive release of the MPPS data, restricted datasets are available through openICPSR's Virtual Data Enclave.

Please note: additional waves of MPPS public use datasets are being prepared, and will be available as part of this project as soon as they are completed. For information on accessing MPPS public use and restricted datasets, please visit the MPPS data access page: http://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public-policy-survey/mpps-data-access.php

The specifications and guidelines in this Data Management Plan will improve data consistency and availability of information. It will ensure that all levels of government and the public have access to the most up-to-date information; reduce or eliminate overlapping data requests and redundant data maintenance; ensure metadata is consistently created; and ensure that data services can be displayed by the consumer with the output of its choice.

Provides access to data including wide range of topics related to disability. ADDEP data can be used to better understand and inform the implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability policies.

In the current scientific data landscape, we find a variety of different data access and management methods and techniques. To build a collaborative data infrastructure it is most important to use a standard interface to archives to lower the barriers between the sciences and to abstract from the technical structure underneath. Such an interface must be general and match the requirements of the scientific communities to be useful. It must also be maintainable over a longer time frame and extensible to adapt to changes in the data landscape. In the following, we show a roadmap toward a standard interface based on the needs of scientific users, best practices, and current trends in computing and storage.

This is a crowd-sourced table (tab-delimited) that attempts to collect and consolidate guidelines from federal agencies related to their plans for facilitating public access to results from the research funded within each agency. These "Public Access Plans" are the result of a US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum that was published in February 2013. To view or contribute to the evolving, current version of the Google spreadsheet, please visit the first link listed below (at bit.ly). A data dictionary is also included here (PDF), which explains the headers and agency acronyms. Note: the Google spreadsheet is formatted for better viewing; the tab-delimited spreadsheet facilitates accessibility. The spreadsheet is largely maintained by academic library-based data specialists, but all are welcome to use it, contribute to it, and share it. We will periodically update this fileset (most recent version: 18 April 2016), but the current version of the table will always be found in the Google spreadsheet.**An "official" collection of responses is finally available, and is being managed and updated by SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). See: http://datasharing.sparcopen.org/

Introduction: Through funding agency and publisher policies, an increasing proportion of the health sciences literature is being made open access. Such an increase in access raises questions about the awareness and potential utilization of this literature by those working in health fields. Methods: A sample of physicians (N=336) and public health non-governmental organization (NGO) staff (N=92) were provided with relatively complete access to the research literature indexed in PubMed, as well as access to the point-of-care service UpToDate, for up to one year, with their usage monitored through the tracking of web-log data. The physicians also participated in a one-month trial of relatively complete or limited access. Results: The study found that participants' research interests were not satisfied by article abstracts alone nor, in the case of the physicians, by a clinical summary service such as UpToDate. On average, a third of the physicians viewed research a little more frequently than once a week, while two-thirds of the public health NGO staff viewed more than three articles a week. Those articles were published since the 2008 adoption of the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as prior to 2008 and during the maximum 12-month embargo period. A portion of the articles in each period was already open access, but complete access encouraged a viewing of more research articles. Conclusion: Those working in health fields will utilize more research in the course of their work as a result of (a) increasing open access to research, (b) improving awareness of and preparation for this access, and (c) adjusting public and open access policies to maximize the extent of potential access, through reduction in embargo periods and access to pre-policy literature.

This dataset, which was created by merging data from CrossRef, CORE, and Mendeley, contains metadata for over 800 thousand publications published between 2013 and 2018. The dataset was used to study how much time does it take for authors to deposit their articles in Open Access repositories in relation to when these articles were published. The source codes of our analysis are available at https://github.com/oacore/jcdl_2019.

Poster on Open Data for Open Access Week at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Two versions available: Adobe Illustrator CS5 (.ai) and .pdf.

PDF-only version here: http://figshare.com/articles/Open_Data_Poster_for_Open_Access_Week/828595 Illustrator-only version here: http://figshare.com/articles/Open_Data_poster_for_Open_Access_Week/828596

Sensitive Regulated Data: Permitted and Restricted UsesPurposeScope and AuthorityStandardViolation of the Standard - Misuse of InformationDefinitionsReferencesAppendix A: Personally Identifiable Information (PII)Appendix B: Security of Personally Owned Devices that Access or Maintain Sensitive Restricted DataAppendix C: Sensitive Security Information (SSI)

In practice, there is a government policy/strategy to increase citizen access to the Web. A 100 score is earned where the government has a multiyear plan to increase citizens access to the Web, which includes all the following elements: 1) enabling access points in schools and public places (libraries, post offices, etc.), and 2) improving infrastructure for broadband and mobile connectivity. A 50 score is earned where the government has a multiyear plan to increase citizens access to the Web, but it only includes one of the two conditions described in 100 or the plan is outdated (for ex. the plan covered the period 2000-2012). A 0 score is earned where the government doesn't have a multiyear plan to increase citizens access to the Web. For variable descriptions, please refer to: https://www.africaintegrityindicators.org/data. For the methodology, please refer to: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e971d408be44753edfb976c/t/60a55f343d36117866628867/1621450563745/AII10+-+Methodology.docx+%281%29.pdf.

Abstract

The documented dataset covers Enterprise Survey (ES) panel data collected in Lesotho in 2009 and 2016, as part of Africa Enterprise Surveys rollout, an initiative of the World Bank. The objective of the Enterprise Survey is to obtain feedback from enterprises on the state of the private sector as well as to help in building a panel of enterprise data that will make it possible to track changes in the business environment over time, thus allowing, for example, impact assessments of reforms.

Enterprise Surveys target a sample consisting of longitudinal (panel) observations and new cross-sectional data. Panel firms are prioritized in the sample selection, comprising up to 50% of the sample in the current wave. For all panel firms, regardless of the sample, current eligibility or operating status is determined and included in panel datasets.

Lesotho ES 2009 was conducted from September 2008 to February 2009, Lesotho ES 2016 was carried out in June - August 2016. Stratified random sampling was used to select the surveyed businesses. Data was collected using face-to-face interviews.

Data from 301 establishments was analyzed: 90 businesses were from 2009 only, 89 - from 2016 only, and 122 firms were from 2009 and 2016.

The standard Enterprise Survey topics include firm characteristics, gender participation, access to finance, annual sales, costs of inputs and labor, workforce composition, bribery, licensing, infrastructure, trade, crime, competition, capacity utilization, land and permits, taxation, informality, business-government relations, innovation and technology, and performance measures. Over 90 percent of the questions objectively measure characteristics of a country’s business environment. The remaining questions assess the survey respondents’ opinions on what are the obstacles to firm growth and performance.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

The primary sampling unit of the study is an establishment. An establishment is a physical location where business is carried out and where industrial operations take place or services are provided. A firm may be composed of one or more establishments. For example, a brewery may have several bottling plants and several establishments for distribution. For the purposes of this survey an establishment must make its own financial decisions and have its own financial statements separate from those of the firm. An establishment must also have its own management and control over its payroll.

Universe

The whole population, or the universe, covered in the Enterprise Surveys is the non-agricultural private economy. It comprises: all manufacturing sectors according to the ISIC Revision 3.1 group classification (group D), construction sector (group F), services sector (groups G and H), and transport, storage, and communications sector (group I). Note that this population definition excludes the following sectors: financial intermediation (group J), real estate and renting activities (group K, except sub-sector 72, IT, which was added to the population under study), and all public or utilities sectors. Companies with 100% government ownership are not eligible to participate in the Enterprise Surveys.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Two levels of stratification were used in this country: industry and establishment size.

Industry stratification was designed as follows: the universe was stratified as into manufacturing and services industries - Manufacturing (ISIC Rev. 3.1 codes 15 - 37), and Services (ISIC codes 45, 50-52, 55, 60-64, and 72).

For the Lesotho ES, size stratification was defined as follows: small (5 to 19 employees), medium (20 to 99 employees), and large (100 or more employees). Regional stratification did not take place for the Lesotho ES.

In 2009, it was not possible to obtain a single usable frame for Lesotho. Instead frames were obtained from two government branches: the Chamber of Commerce and the Ministry of Trade, Industry, Cooperatives and Marketing. Those frames were merged and duplicates removed to provide the frame used for the survey.

In 2016 ES, the sample frame consisted of listings of firms from two sources: for panel firms the list of 151 firms from the Lesotho 2009 ES was used and for fresh firms (i.e., firms not covered in 2009) firm data from Lesotho Bureau of Statistics Business Register, published in August 2015, was used.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The following survey instruments were used for Lesotho ES: - Manufacturing Module Questionnaire - Services Module Questionnaire

The survey is fielded via manufacturing or services questionnaires in order not to ask questions that are irrelevant to specific types of firms, e.g. a question that relates to production and nonproduction workers should not be asked of a retail firm. In addition to questions that are asked across countries, all surveys are customized and contain country-specific questions. An example of customization would be including tourism-related questions that are asked in certain countries when tourism is an existing or potential sector of economic growth. There is a skip pattern in the Service Module Questionnaire for questions that apply only to retail firms.

Cleaning operations

Data entry and quality controls are implemented by the contractor and data is delivered to the World Bank in batches (typically 10%, 50% and 100%). These data deliveries are checked for logical consistency, out of range values, skip patterns, and duplicate entries. Problems are flagged by the World Bank and corrected by the implementing contractor through data checks, callbacks, and revisiting establishments.

Response rate

Survey non-response must be differentiated from item non-response. The former refers to refusals to participate in the survey altogether whereas the latter refers to the refusals to answer some specific questions. Enterprise Surveys suffer from both problems and different strategies were used to address these issues.

Item non-response was addressed by two strategies: a- For sensitive questions that may generate negative reactions from the respondent, such as corruption or tax evasion, enumerators were instructed to collect "Refusal to respond" (-8) as a different option from "Don't know" (-9). b- Establishments with incomplete information were re-contacted in order to complete this information, whenever necessary.

Survey non-response was addressed by maximizing efforts to contact establishments that were initially selected for interview. Attempts were made to contact the establishment for interview at different times/days of the week before a replacement establishment (with similar strata characteristics) was suggested for interview. Survey non-response did occur but substitutions were made in order to potentially achieve strata-specific goals.

The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 brought the issue of implementation to the forefront of discussions of open access (OA). One issue addressed in the Plan and in a number of responses to it is that of compliance: many funding bodies in North America and Europe have OA mandates, but to what extent are researchers complying with them?

The 2013 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memo on federally-funded research directed agencies with research and development budgets above $100 million to develop and release plans to increase and broaden access to research results, both published literature and data. The agency responses have generated discussion and interest but are yet to be analyzed and compared. This data accompanies a paper in which we analyze 19 federal agencies responded to the Holdren memo on issues of scientific data and the extent of their compliance to the directives outlined in the memo.

The data underlying scientific papers should be accessible to researchers both now and in the future, but how best can we ensure that these data are available? Here we examine the effectiveness of four approaches to data archiving: no stated archiving policy, recommending (but not requiring) archiving, and two versions of mandating data deposition at acceptance. We control for differences between data types by trying to obtain data from papers that use a single, widespread population genetic analysis, STRUCTURE. At one extreme, we found that mandated data archiving policies that require the inclusion of a data availability statement in the manuscript improve the odds of finding the data online almost 1000-fold compared to having no policy. However, archiving rates at journals with less stringent policies were only very slightly higher than those with no policy at all. We also assessed the effectiveness of asking for data directly from authors and obtained over half of the requested data...