Article
“Who Is the FAIRest of Them All?” Authors, Entities, and
Journals Regarding FAIR Data Principles
Luis Corujo
Centre for Classical Studies, School of Arts and Humanities, University of Lisbon, Alameda da Universidade,
1600-214 Lisbon, Portugal; luiscorujo@campus.ul.pt
Abstract: The perceived need to improve the infrastructure supporting the re-use of scholarly data
since the second decade of the 21st century led to the design of a concise number of principles and
metrics, named FAIR Data Principles. This paper, part of an extended study, intends to identify the
main authors, entities, and scientific journals linked to research conducted within the FAIR Data
Principles. The research was developed by means of a qualitative approach, using documentary research and a constant comparison method for codification and categorization of the sampled data.
The sample studied showed that most authors were located in the Netherlands, with Europe accounting for more than 70% of the number of authors considered. Most of these are researchers and
work in higher education institutions. These entities can be found in most of the territorial-administrative areas under consideration, with the USA being the country with more entities and Europe
being the world region where they are more numerous. The journal with more texts in the used
sample was Insights, with 2020 being the year when more texts were published. Two of the most
prominent authors present in the sample texts were located in the Netherlands, while the other two
were in France and Australia.
Keywords: FAIR Data Principles; scientific research; academic journals
Citation: Corujo, L. “Who Is the
FAIRest of Them All?” Authors,
Entities, and Journals Regarding
FAIR Data Principles. Publications
2022, 10, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/
publications10030031
Academic Editor: Jorge Revez
Received: 11 July 2022
Accepted: 6 September 2022
Published: 8 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution
(CC
BY)
license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Since the second decade of the 21st century, there has been a perceived need to improve the infrastructure supporting the re-use of scholarly data. As part of this, a set of
stakeholders, including representatives from academia, industry, funding agencies, and
academic publishers, have designed a concise number of principles and metrics, which
they named FAIR Data Principles [1,2]. The acronym FAIR refers to the characteristics of
Location (Findable), Accessibility (Accessible), Interoperability (Interoperable), and Reusability (Reusable). These principles specifically emphasize improving the ability of machines (in this context, interpreted as digital repositories) to find and use data automatically, as well as supporting its reuse by individuals [2] (p. 1).
Within this framework, the 15 principles presented appear divided by the identified
categories. In order to be findable (Findable), (1) data (and/or metadata) are assigned a
globally unique and persistent identifier; (2) data are described with enriched metadata
(defined by principle 10); (3) metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the
data it describes; (4) data (and/or metadata) are recorded or indexed in a searchable resource. In order to be accessible (Accessible) (5), the data (and/or metadata) are retrievable
via their identifier using a standardized communication protocol; (5.1) the protocol is
open, free, and universally implementable; (5.2) the protocol allows an authentication and
authorization procedure, where necessary; and (6) the metadata are accessible, even when
the data are no longer available. In order to be interoperable (Interoperable), (7) the data
(and/or metadata) use a formal, accessible, shared, and widely applicable language for
knowledge representation; (8) the data (and/or metadata) use vocabulary that follow
Publications 2022, 10, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030031
www.mdpi.com/journal/publications
Publications 2022, 10, 31
2 of 38
FAIR principles; and (9) the data (and/or metadata) include qualified references to other
data (and/or metadata). In order to be reusable (Reusable), (10) data (and/or metadata) are
richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes; (10.1) data (and/or
metadata) are communicated with a clear and accessible data use license; (10.2) data
(and/or metadata) are associated with detailed provenance; (10.3) data (and/or metadata)
meet standards relevant to the community domain.
By considering how to spread out the support for these principles, authors such as
Mons et al. [3] considered that their interpretation also multiplied because (among other
reasons) they allow a great deal of freedom regarding its implementation. For this reason,
they stated that the FAIR Data Principles should not be considered: (1) a standard; (2) equal
to RDF, linked data, or the semantic web; (3) limited to how humans are able to find,
access, reformat, and reuse data; (4) equal to open; (5) a life sciences hobby [3] (p. 51–52).
Instead, these authors consider the principles to be crucial for data and services used for
evidence-based decisions, to expose malpractices in terms of intellectual property and research, and to allow the participation of citizens from any country in different scientific
research projects [3].
The variety of interpretations of what it means to be FAIR, or how FAIR is an object,
was also pointed out by Higman et al. [4]. While discussing the boundaries, intersections,
and overlaps between the concepts of FAIR, Open Data, and Research Data Management,
they considered that the first two are noble aspirations and a useful way for scientists to
engage in good data practices by focusing on data sharing, in order to ensure that content
is made available in ways that promote access and reutilization [4]. On the other hand,
Research Data Management, since its conception, has been considered to be about data
stewardship [4].
Recognizing the importance of FAIR Data Principles in raising awareness about
adopting good practices and defining necessary characteristics of data objects to ensure
that data are reusable by humans and machines, several stakeholders from various segments of the digital repository practice and research community argue that in order to
keep data in accordance with these principles, while preserving them in the long term,
requires trusted digital repositories with sustainable governance and organizational
structures, along with reliable infrastructure and comprehensive policies that support the
community-agreed practices [5] (p. 1). Within this framework, NESTOR—the network of
expertise in the long-term storage of digital resources in Germany—criticizes FAIR Data
Principles with regard to the lack of systematic attention toward digital preservation [6].
Indeed, trusted digital repositories support data curation and preservation of data collections with different levels of reuse. In situations of lower quality data, which cannot be
reasonably improved or made more interoperable, but which may still retain high value
for its user community, reliable stewardship is required.
Research regarding initiatives, concepts, and implementation of FAIR Data Principles
has been presented in fields such as health data stewardship [7], bioinformatics [8], biological knowledge networks [9], or focused on heritage institutions such as libraries, archives, and Museums [10]. However, there is a perceived lack of studies on the authors
and profiles that participate in research focused on FAIR Data Principles.
The current paper is part of developing research focused on identifying and analyzing,
in a comparative way, the main programs and projects regarding or making use of FAIR
Data Principles at a worldwide level; identifying the main actors and contrasting their perceptions and interpretations of the said principles; distinguishing the proposals and solutions that emerge from the analysis of perceptions and meaning related to those. It is also
intended to, by means of a trend analysis of the specific scientific literature, identify projects,
initiatives, and programs of international expression on the FAIR Data Principles. The intended future results of this research are a critical and trend-based theoretical construction
of the examined literature. This might allow us to formulate recommendations for the use
of FAIR Data Principles, besides showing possible consensuses and dissents, uncertainties,
and certainties behind what is perceived of the said principles and their uses.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
3 of 38
In this regard, within the scope of the cutting-edge international scientific literature
and by means of document analysis of papers regarding FAIR Data Principles, dating from
2016 onward, collected in three scientific databases, the study presented in this paper specifically intended to identify the main authors, entities, and scientific journals linked to
research emphasizing the FAIR Data Principles since its inception. For such aim, it defined
questions concerning: the authors, their locations and professional occupation; the organizations/entities where the authors perform their professional and research activities, including the place where such entities are based; the journals where and when the authors’
research was published; the most prominent authors in terms of authorship. The research
questions can be summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Who is writing about FAIR Data Principles?
Where are they based?
What institutions and countries are leading the effort?
In which scientific journals are they publishing their research?
The study allowed us to establish the landscape in which research dedicated to, or
adopting, the FAIR Principles takes place. This considers both theoretical research and
exercises of the practical application of the said principles.
Within this scope, the study of the researchers’ profiles revealed the original contexts
of those who developed this type of research.
We established the year 2016 and later as the chronological boundaries for collecting
the sample of scientific papers used for the document analysis since that was the year
when the “FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship”
were published [2]. We chose the LISA—Library, Information Science Abstracts; LISTA—
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and Scopus databases because we
were given access to them. Only peer-reviewed documents with full text were considered
so that they could be used in future expansions of this research. Future research will allow
us to collect and analyze an expanded number of information sources to build a structured
information corpus that will be further analyzed and interpreted.
Although delimited by the sample, this allows us to identify trends that, in further
research, may be contrasted with data collected from a larger number of sources and with
broader research criteria.
It should be noted that it is not the focus of this paper to make a thematic distinction
between the texts in the sample or a typological delimitation as to the types of research
presented in those texts.
2. Materials and Methods
We developed a study with a qualitative approach, using documentary research,
which is considered a systematic procedure for reviewing or assessing documentary material with textual or image information recorded without human intervention. The researcher then uses the examination and interpretation of data to extract meaning, gain
understanding and develop empirical knowledge [11]. This analytic procedure involves
identifying, selecting, evaluating, and synthesizing the documents’ data. Document analysis produces data—excerpts, quotes, or entire passages—which are then organized into
main themes, categories, and case examples specifically through content analysis [11].
This documentary research provided the means to establish the contextualization
necessary to outline the problem and define the FAIR Data Principles scenario, and, on the
other hand, it helped to develop the approach to that issue within the international scientific literature.
We then developed a systematization proposal, delimited by the data collection, and
elaborated upon the categories collected and identified through the constant comparison
method (CCM). CCM is a qualitative analysis approach developed within the grounded
theory methodology, which focuses on the comparison of and between all the data elements, which can be identified as a procedure for interpreting texts, through coding and
Publications 2022, 10, 31
4 of 38
analysis, in order to develop theory [12,13] (p. 437). This method has four phases: (1) the
comparison of incidents applicable to each category, (2) the integration of categories and
their properties, (3) the delimitation of theory, and (4) the writing of theory [12] (p. 51–53)
[13] (p.439–443). The analysis, which was carried out on the texts collected through the
CCM, was developed by means of a back-and-forth process of coding, categorization, and
saturation of the data on which this work is based, which constitutes a progressive spiral
whose reflections allowed us to verify the main authors, entities, and scientific journals
linked to the research conducted, with a special emphasis on the FAIR Data Principles since
its inception. The use of the CCM will allow proceeding with the future analysis and interpretation of the information corpus resulting from expanded data gathering to be performed by the use of the grounded theory method.
The constructed model enabled the content analysis of the collected texts’ main
themes, originating a set of memoranda per category, which this study identifies. We
sought, specifically, to reveal an invisible dimension, as explained by Bardin: “From the
moment the content analysis decides to codify its material, it must produce a system of
categories. The categorization has as its first objective (in the same way as the documentary analysis) to provide, by condensation, a simplified representation of the raw data. (...)
Content analysis implicitly rests on the belief that categorization (the passage from raw
data to organized data) does not introduce deviations (by excess or by refusal) in the material, but that it makes invisible indices known, at the level of the raw data” [14] (p. 148–
149, our translation).
On 5 April 2022, research at LISA—Library, Information Science Abstracts; LISTA—
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and Scopus databases were carried
out in order to collect bibliographic references containing the terms “FAIR Data Principles”. This delimitation was applied due to the acronym “FAIR” being easily confused for
the word “fair”. For that matter, it seems easy to find papers that use the concept of “fair
principles” but are not concerned with “FAIR Data Principles”. Nevertheless, future research will take that into account, especially the uses of the concept of “fair principles”
that are especially concerned with FAIR Data Principles.
As stated before, the search strategy defined for collecting the sample of scientific papers used for the document analysis considered the year 2016 and later as the chronological
boundaries since that was the year when the “FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data
management and stewardship” were published [2]. The three databases were chosen because the author has authorized access to them. Only peer-reviewed documents with full
text were considered so that they could be used in future work expanding this research.
Table 1 identifies the following search strategies.
Table 1. Databases, search strategies, and number of results.
Database
Search Strategy
Number of Results
LISA
“FAIR Data Principles” AND PEER (yes) AND pd (>20160101)
24
TX “FAIR Data Principles”; Expanders: Also search within the
full text of the articles; Apply equivalent subjects; Limiters: Full
5
LISTA
Text; Peer Reviewed; Publication Date: 20160101–20221231;
Source Types: All Results
TX “FAIR Data Principles”; Expanders: Also search within the
full text of the articles; Apply equivalent subjects; Limiters: Full
12
SCOPUS
Text; Peer Reviewed; Publication Date: 20160101–20221231;
Source Types: All Results
Total
41
A total of 41 articles were retrieved. The cleaning of duplicates (3) and the exclusion of
articles that were not in English (5) were made. After reading the abstracts, one paper was
excluded on account of the full text being behind a paywall. This resulted in 32 articles.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
5 of 38
Table A1 in the Appendix A presents the papers that were retrieved and analyzed
regarding the present research.
It is reiterated that it was not the focus of this particular paper to make a thematic
distinction of the texts in the sample or a typological delimitation as to the types of research presented in them. Therefore, in the collection and selection of texts, as well as in
the content analysis, there was no distinction or typological or thematic analysis of the
research presented in the studied texts.
As mentioned before, the analysis was performed by means of CCM, a qualitative
analysis approach. During this analysis, incidents in the data were compared for the creation of pre-textual codes, such as the names of authors, their professional occupations,
the countries and institutions where they were based, the scientific journals that published
the sampled texts, and the year in which they were published, in a back-and-forth process.
These codes led to the identification of categories (which are more abstract codes) that led
to further analysis of the collected texts to saturate the data regarding the professional
occupation and the entity type.
Although this effort is presented very briefly, it constitutes the central task of this
research, both for the time it took to be executed and for allowing the verification of which
main authors, entities, and scientific journals were linked to the research conducted and
for defining the organizational logic of the data that are reflected in the descriptions provided in the results and discussion section.
Since this paper is part of qualitative research, the results produced at the current
stage must be confirmed or tested by further research, gathering data from other databases and information sources to produce sound theoretical assumptions and as a form of
quality control. In order to help the validation and quality control of this research, memoranda will be produced during the future analysis and interpretation of the information
corpus resulting from expanded data gathering as a methodological tool of the grounded
theory method.
3. Results and Discussion
The papers from the sample were analyzed, and the data were collected and codified.
The resulting codes from this process allowed for a more abstract codification, which permitted the development of categories. These categories revealed the need to saturate the
properties of each of these categories, which led to the search for information in other
sources (such as academic and professional platforms, personal or institutional, and journal websites). This information allowed us to establish information about the authors, entities, and journals and structure the presentation of what emerged from the analysis, as
shown below.
3.1. Distribution of Authors by Country
The data on the provenance of the authors and their professional occupation were extracted from analyzed texts that were accompanied by a biographical note, from the authors’
biographical notes that were available on the publications’ websites and/or websites of the
professional associations that publish these publications, from the curricula vitae available
on the websites of the higher education institutions where they carry out their academic
activity, and from the curricula vitae available on the ORCID and LinkedIn platforms. Unless otherwise stated, the information refers to the moment of authorship of the text(s). The
provenance considers the location of the authors at the time of their publications.
From the sample of thirty-three texts used for this part of the research, 128 authors
were identified.
The authors’ distribution data by country at the time of authorship of the texts are
shown in Figure 1 and Table A2 (in the Appendix A).
Publications 2022, 10, 31
6 of 38
Figure 1. Distribution of Authors by Country.
It is noticeable that the majority of authors are from the Netherlands (25%, a quarter
of the authors), followed ex aequo by Germany and the United States (19.53%, almost a
fifth of the authors), Ireland (7.03%, with nine authors), and the United Kingdom (6.25%,
with eight authors). The list of countries with more than one author also includes France,
Italy, Australia, Canada, China, Spain, and Switzerland. It should be noted that an author
from the Netherlands was at the time working in the VASCERN European Reference Centre, an International Reference Network (Leo Schultze Kool). In the specific situations of
the countries where only one text was published by a single author, we indicate a Czech
university lecturer (Lenka Kourimska), a Japanese researcher (Kai Nishikawa), a Portuguese researcher (Isabel Castanheira), a Romanian researcher (Nastasia Belc), a Slovenian
university lecturer and researcher (Nives Ogrinc) and a PhD student at two higher education institutions in the United States and France (Coline Ferrant).
3.2. Professional Occupation
The coding of the authors’ professional occupation resulted in a set of categories,
which include CEO, independent consultant, information professionals, IT professionals,
management, professors, researchers, and students. The independent consultant category
includes senior analyst contractors and science publishers who work independently. Information professionals (library and information science—LIS) refers to employees, directors, and coordinators who work as librarians, data stewards, data management consultants, research data services professionals, data librarians, repository managers, and open
access service managers. IT professionals refer to any computer or software engineer
and/or specialist, technical data services professional, software developer, scientific and
technical officer (STO)—data management, and data analyst/coordinator. Management
refers to professionals who perform activities such as communication manager, director
of partnerships, director of biosciences, and manager of the technology’s programs,
mainly in a corporate context. Professors exercise, in some way, teaching activities in
higher education institutions, while researchers are those who develop professional activities in the field of research. Finally, students refer to those individuals who were undertaking their PhD.
We also found that some authors accumulate more than one professional role, which
leads to the development of specific categories for those cases.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
7 of 38
Despite being attached to an organization (in this case, the Marine Institute, an Irish
Governmental Agency), authors such as Caoimhín Kelly defined themselves as contractors and were therefore coded as belonging to the category of independent consultants.
The data concerning the professional occupation of the authors can be found in Figure 2 and Table A3 (in the Appendix A).
Figure 2. Authors’ Professional Occupation.
These data allowed us to verify that 51 authors carried out research activities
(39.85%), 12 of which were also professors (9.38%), one (Karl Presser) was a CEO, and
another (Martijn Kersloot) a manager (0.78% each). However, within the academic universe, there were 34 higher education professors, corresponding to more than a quarter of
the authors (26.56%), where, in addition to the previously indicated 12 authors who combined research activities (9.38% previously indicated), there were two who also worked
as information professionals, Ayla Stein Kenfield and John J. Meier (1.56%). There were
20 full-time professors (15.62%). The existence of six students (4.69%) is also worth mentioning in this context.
More than a fifth of the authors (21.09%) were information (LIS) professionals. Apart
from the two authors who combined such functions with university professorship
(1.56%), 25 were exclusively involved in LIS activities (19.53%).
The fifteen IT professionals corresponded to more than a tenth of the authors (11.72%).
There were five authors with management activities (3.91%), four of whom—Heather
Staines, Linda van den Berg, Maryann E Martone and Merlijn N. van Rijswijk—were fulltime managers (3.13%). Likewise, the authors with CEO functions corresponded to four
(3.13%): three in exclusive, Dominic Farace, Tiberius Ignat, and Wolfgang Colsman
(2.34%); and Karl Presser, who already indicated that he also had a part in research activities (0.78%).
Finally, two independent consultants (1.56%), Caoimhín Kelly and Jan Velterop,
were mentioned.
3.3. Distribution of Authors by Organizations and Entities
It is also important to know where the authors work and which type of organization.
This information is provided in Table A4 in the Appendix A.
The coding process regarding the organizations where the authors carried out their
activities required the identification of the parent entities where such organizations were
integrated. There were many situations in which the entities were public, namely higher
education organizations and research centers. However, it was decided to identify as governmental agencies only those organizations whose mandate specifically identified them
Publications 2022, 10, 31
8 of 38
as such. Furthermore, it was deemed necessary to separate independent organizations
from private organizations, given that the former refers to non-profit entities and the latter
is more associated with the corporate world. Moreover, international reference networks
are organizations created or funded by international entities to gather resources for research purposes (in this case, the VASCERN European Reference Centre).
Despite being attached to an organization (in this case, the Marine Institute, an Irish
Governmental Agency), we reinforce that authors such as Caoimhín Kelly defined themselves as contractors and were therefore coded as belonging to the category of an independent consultant.
In the data presented, it should be noted that Barend Mons was a lecturer at three
entities, namely Leiden University, Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, and The Netherlands eScience Centre; Coline Ferrant was a PhD student at Northwestern University
(USA) and at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po, in France); Hélène Prost
was an IT professional (Information engineer) at the University of Lille III and at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, both in France; Jaap Heringa was a researcher
at the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences and a professor at the Vrije Universiteit (VU)
Amsterdam, both in the Netherlands; Karl Presser was a researcher at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology and CEO of Premotec GmbH, both in Switzerland; Leo Schultze
Kool was a professor at the VASCERN European Reference Centre and Radboud University (the Netherlands); Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos was a professor at the Vrije
Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam and at the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, both in the
Netherlands; Marc Rittberger was a professor at the Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences and a researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education,
both in Germany; Marco Roos was a professor at Leiden University and researcher at the
Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, both in the Netherlands; Martijn Kersloot was a researcher at Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam, and a Manager (Product Owner Data and
Innovation) at Castor EDC, Amsterdam, both in the Netherlands; and Renaud Fabre was
a professor at the University of Paris VIII and a researcher at the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique.
Figure 3 provides information regarding the number of authors per type of entity.
Figure 3. Number of Authors per Type of Entity.
Almost two-thirds of the authors were working in higher education institutions
(60.28%), and slightly less than a quarter were working in research centers (23.40%). The
entities with more referenced authors were, ex aequo, a higher education institution and a
research center, respectively, the Delft University of Technology and the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences (6.38% of the referred authors each), both from the Netherlands. Government agencies and private organizations had nine authors each (6.38%), and
Publications 2022, 10, 31
9 of 38
independent organizations had two authors (1.42%). Two authors identified themselves
as an independent consultant (1.42%). Only one type of entity has only one author, corresponding to the international reference networks (VASCERN European Reference Centre).
The information on the 68 entities where the addressed authors develop their activities, plus two independent consultants (Jan Velterop and Caoimhín Kelly), can be found
in Table A5 (in the Appendix A) and Figures 4 and 5. However, one must keep in mind
that eleven authors developed professional or study activities in more than one entity
(Barend Mons in three entities, and Coline Ferrant, Hélène Prost, Jaap Heringa, Karl
Presser, Leo Schultze Kool, Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos, Marc Rittberger, Marco
Roos, Martijn Kersloot, Renaud Fabre).
Figure 4 presents the number of organizations per type of entity.
Figure 4. Number of Organizations per Type of Entity.
Figure 5. Distribution of Entity Types per territorial-administrative areas.
These data show that almost two-thirds of the organizations are higher education
institutions (62.86%), with research centers accounting for almost one-fifth of the organizations surveyed (17.14%). Private organizations represent less than one-tenth of the entities identified (8.57%). Government agencies include three organizations (4.29%). Two
types of entities include two organizations or refer to two persons (the independent
Publications 2022, 10, 31
10 of 38
organizations and the independent consultant), and one type of entity refers to one organization (international reference network).
Figure 5 presents the distribution of entity types per territorial-administrative area (countries and the European Union).
This shows us that higher education institutions are also those that cover most of the
territorial-administrative areas under consideration and are only not represented in the
sample at the international level and by countries such as Portugal and Romania. They
are followed by the research centers, which limit their representation within the sample
studied to France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.
Only one type of entity is represented in only one country or territorial-administrative unit: the International Reference Network in the European Union.
Most of the entities retrieved from the sample belong to the United States (18.57%,
just under a fifth of the entities), followed by the Netherlands (17.14%), Germany (15.71%,
just over a sixth), France (8.57%, less than a tenth), and the United Kingdom (7.14%). Four
countries have three entities listed (Australia, Ireland, Italy, and Switzerland), two countries have two entities listed (Canada and Spain), and seven countries or territorial entities
have only one of the entities identified (China, Czechia, European Union, Japan, Portugal,
Romania, and Slovenia).
Almost one-sixth of the organizations surveyed were higher education institutions
from the United States (14.29%), followed by German and Dutch higher education institutions, which each account for one-tenth of the organizations surveyed (10% each),
French higher education institutions (7.14%), and Australian higher education institutions
(4.29%), together with German research centers (also 4.29%). Overall, there is a preponderance of higher education institutions from the European Union, which represent more
than a third (35.71%) of the institutions surveyed, while this type of institution from the
English-speaking countries represents less than a quarter of the total number of institutions (24.3%).
The Netherlands had the broadest coverage in terms of entity types since it does not
only include independent consultants and international reference networks. It was followed
in this respect by Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, each with
three different types of entity. Canada, France, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland each had two
types of entities. Finally, Australia, China, Czechia, the European Union, Japan, Portugal,
Romania, and Slovenia had only one type of entity in the sample analyzed.
3.4. Distribution of Papers by Journals and Years
The information on the distribution of analyzed texts by scientific journals is presented in Figure 6 and Table A6 (in the Appendix A).
Publications 2022, 10, 31
11 of 38
Figure 6. Distribution of Scientific Papers by Journals.
The data show that most of the scientific papers used in this study were published in
Insights: The UKSG Journal (15.63%), with this scientific journal being followed ex aequo by
the Aslib Journal of Information Management, LIBER Quarterly, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, and Studies in Health Technology and Informatics (6.25% each).
The journals from which only one article originates are as follows: Applications in
Plant Sciences; Briefings in Bioinformatics; Code4Lib Journal; Computers and Geosciences; Data
Technologies and Applications; Digital Library Perspectives; Ecological Informatics; Frontiers in
Chemistry; Information Services & Use; Information Technology and Libraries; International Journal of Information Management; International Journal of Librarianship; Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics; Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication; Journal of Medical Internet
Research; Journal of New Music Research; Knowledge Organization; Library Technology Reports;
and Library Trends.
Two journals account for a single author in the sample (International Journal of Information Management and Library Technology Reports).
The chronological distribution of the scientific texts in the sample is shown in Table
2 and Figure 7.
Table 2. Distribution of analyzed Papers by Year.
Years
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total
Number of Texts
2
9
7
12
2
32
% Texts
6.25%
28.13%
21.88%
37.5%
6.25%
100%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
12 of 38
Figure 7. Distribution of Scientific Papers by Year.
This information allows us to note that, within the defined chronological delimitation, only in 2016 and 2022 (up to 5 April, when the research and collection of texts were
carried out) were there no results. Thus, the years between 2017 and 2021 are represented
by at least two of the sample texts.
2020 presents itself as the year in which a greater number of texts were published
(37.5%, more than a third of the sample), followed by the number of texts from 2018
(28.13%, more than a quarter of the texts), followed by the number of texts from 2019
(21.88%, more than a fifth of the texts). The years 2017 and 2021 hold, ex aequo, fewer texts
in this sample (only two each).
3.5. Distribution of Authors by Journal and Place of Origin
Figure 8 and Table A7 (in the Appendix A) show the data concerning the authors
covered in the universe of publications used in this part of the study. Figure 8 is reproduced on a greater scale in Figure A1, in the Appendix B, for better visualization.
Figure 8. Number of Authors per Journal.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
13 of 38
These data show that Studies in Health Technology and Informatics has the most authors
among the publications used in this part of the study (13.74%), followed by Frontiers in
Chemistry (8.4%), followed by Computers and Geosciences, Ecological Informatics, Insights: The
UKSG Journal, and LIBER Quarterly (6.87%, each).
The publication Briefings in Bioinformatics results in 6.11%, Information Technology and
Libraries in 5.34%, and Information Services & Use in 4.58%. Eight publications have four
authors each: Applications in Plant Sciences; ASLIB Journal of Information Management; Data
Technologies and Applications; Digital Library Perspectives; Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics;
Journal of Medical Internet Research; Knowledge Organization; and Library Trends.
The publication Portal: Libraries and the Academy refers to 2.29% of authors, while
Code4Lib Journal, International Journal of Librarianship, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communication, and Journal of New Music Research have two authors.
The journals with a single author are the International Journal of Information Management (corresponding to Matthew I. Bellgard) and Library Technology Reports (Bohyun Kim).
These figures have to be weighted with the fact that some authors have publications,
used in this part of the study, in more than one journal, such as Barend Mons, with publications in Briefings in Bioinformatics and Information Services & Use; Cameron Neylon, who has
published in Information Services & Use and Insights: The UKSG Journal; and Joachim
Schöpfel, with publications in Knowledge Organization and Data Technologies and Applications.
Information regarding journals by countries of origin of the authors of the articles is
provided in Figure 9 and Table A8 in the Appendix A. Figure 9 is reproduced on a greater
scale in Figure A2, in the Appendix B, for better visualization. We underlined that the
provenance/geographical distribution of the authors considers the location of the authors
at the time of their publications. The study does not assume their nationality.
Figure 9. Geographical Distribution of Authors by Journal.
This information shows that most of the articles from Studies in Health Technology and
Informatics in the studied sample were written by authors located in the Netherlands
(7.63%), including one article whose authorship was shared between eight authors located
in Germany (Christian-Alexander Behrendt, Dennis Kadioglu, Fatlume Sadiku, Frank
Ückert, Holger Storf, Jannik Shaaf, Jens Goebel, and Thomas O.F. Wagner) and two from
the Netherlands (David van Enckevort and Marco Roos).
Publications 2022, 10, 31
14 of 38
The journal Frontiers in Chemistry appears in the sample with only one text whose
authorship is shared by the greatest number of authors in the sample, in addition to being
the one with the greatest number of authors from different geographical provenance.
Thus, it has two authors located in Italy (Claudia Zoani and Giovanna Zappa) (1.53%), in
addition to one author located in each of these countries: Czechia (Lenka Kourimska);
France (Olivier F.X. Donard); Germany (Michael Rychlik); The Netherlands (Marga C.
Ocké); Portugal (Isabel Castanheira); Romania (Nastasia Belc); Slovenia (Nives Ogrinc);
Spain (Larraitz Añorga); and Switzerland (Karl Presser).
The journals Computers and Geosciences and Ecological Informatics share the largest
number of authors from the same country (6.87% each), considering that each one is represented in the studied sample by a scientific paper. The authors who published in the
first journal were located in Germany (Carsten Hoffmann, Kristian Senkler, M.A. Muqit
Zoarder, Markus Stecker, Nikolai Svoboda, Philipp Gärtner, Udo Einspanier, Uwe Heinrich, and Xenia Specka), while those of the second journal was located in Ireland (Adam
Leadbetter, Andrew Conway, Caoimhín Kelly, Deirdre Brophy, Elizabeth Tray, Elvira de
Eyto, Niall Ó Maoiléidigh, Siobhan Moran, Will Meaney).
The journal LIBER Quarterly is represented in the sample by two papers, one authored by eight authors (6.11%) from the Netherlands (Esther Plomp, Heather Andrews
Mancilla, Jasper van Dijck, Kees den Heijer, Marta Teperek, Robbert Eggermont, Shalini
Kurapati, and Yasemin Turkyilmaz-van der Velden), and the other by an author residing
in Canada (David Wilcox).
Another journal that corresponds to nine authors who published texts from the sample is Insights: The UKSG Journal. From this journal, the sample presents two papers published each by an author, where one comes from the United States (William H Walters)
and another from Australia (Cameron Neylon). It also presents two articles, each published by two authors, where one is authored by two authors from the United States
(Heather Staines and Maryann E Martone), and the other has shared authorship by authors located in the United Kingdom (Paul Ayris) and Switzerland (Tiberius Ignat). It also
presents another paper that shares authorship between two authors from the United Kingdom (Rosie Higman and Sarah Jones) and one from Germany (Daniel Bangert).
Regarding the other journals in the sample, seven other journals were identified as
sharing authors from different countries. Thus, Information Services & Use has only one text
written by three authors located in the Netherlands (Barend Mons, Luiz Olavo Bonino da
Silva Santos, Michel Dumontier), one from Australia (Cameron Neylon), one resident in
Spain (Mark D. Wilkinson), and another from the United Kingdom (Jan Velterop).
Knowledge Organization presents a text by two authors from France (Hélène Prost and Joachim Schöpfel), one from Italy (Antonella Zane), and one from the Netherlands (Dominic
Farace). The ASLIB Journal of Information Management presents a text by three authors located in Germany (Christoph Schindler, Julian Hocker and Marc Rittberger) and another
text by an author located in Japan (Kai Nishikawa). From Data Technologies and Applications
comes a text published by three authors living in France (Francis Andre, Joachim Schöpfel,
and Renaud Fabre) and a PhD student who shares his location between France and the
United States (Coline Ferrant). The Journal of Medical Internet Research is represented by
one text from three authors located in Germany (Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke, Dagmar Waltemath, and Esther Thea Inau) and one from the United States (Jean Sack). Library Trends
also features a text shared by three authors from China (Jie Hu, Jilong Zhang, and Shenqin
Yin) and one located in Australia (Menghao Jia). Moreover, the Journal of New Music Research presents a text by an author located in France (Francesca Frontini) and another one
in Italy (Silvia Calamai).
In addition to these, there are journals with texts in the sample shared only by authors
located in the same country. The United States presents the largest number of scientific
journals that, in the sample, appear with texts published by authors located in that country. Within this scope, Information Technology and Libraries present a text by seven authors
located in the same country (Guillaume Viger, Joseph P. Ferrie, Kristi Holmes, Lisa
Publications 2022, 10, 31
15 of 38
O’Keefe, Matthew B. Carson, Norrina B. Allen, and Sara Gonzales); Applications in Plant
Sciences, with a text by four authors (Anna K. Monfils, Edward E. Gilbert, Michael W.
Belitz, Rachel A. Hackett); Digital Library Perspectives, with another text by four authors
(Ben Welker, Brian Rennick, Dennis Della Corte, and Wolfgang Colsman); Portal: Libraries
and the Academy, with a text by two authors (Bradley Wade Bishop and Rose M. Borden)
and another by one author (Ayla Stein Kenfield); the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communications, with a text by two authors (Elise Gowen and John J. Meier); and Library
Technology Reports with a text by Bohyun Kim.
Next are the two journals with texts from the sample whose authorship is attributed
to authors located in the Netherlands: Briefings in Bioinformatics presents a text with eight
authors (Barend Mons, Celia W. G. van Gelder, Jaap Heringa, Linda van den Berg, Marcel
Reinders, Merlijn N. van Rijswijk, Rob W. W. Hooft, and Ruben G. Kok); and Code4Lib
Journal, with a text by Lukas Koster and Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer.
Finally, the Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics features a text by four authors located
in the United Kingdom (Ajit Singh, Christopher Rawlings, Keywan Hassani-Pak, and
Marco Brandizi), the International Journal of Librarianship, with a text by two authors located in Canada (Guoying Liu and Kristi Thompson), and the International Journal of Information Management, with a text by an author from Australia (Matthew I. Bellgard).
We reiterate that these figures have to be weighted into consideration the fact that
some authors have publications used in this part of the study in more than one journal, as
is the case of Barend Mons, with publications in Briefings in Bioinformatics and Information
Services & Use; Cameron Neylon, who has publications in Information Services & Use and
Insights: The UKSG Journal; and Joachim Schöpfel, with publications in Knowledge Organization and Data Technologies and Applications.
3.6. Most Frequent Authors: Production and Profile
The information about the authors with more than one scientific paper in the used
sample in this study is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Authors with more than one paper in the used sample.
Author
Paper Name
Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR
Data guiding principles for the European Open
Barend
Science Cloud
Mons
Bioinformatics in the Netherlands: The value of a
nationwide community
Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR
Data guiding principles for the European Open
Cameron
Science Cloud
Neylon
Social infrastructures in research communication:
a personal view of the FORCE11 story
Research data management in the French National
Research Center (CNRS)
Joachim
Schöpfel
Data Papers as a New Form of Knowledge Organization in the Field of Research Data
OSSE Goes FAIR-Implementation of the FAIR
Data Principles for an Open-Source Registry for
Rare Diseases
Marco Roos
Applying the FAIR data principles to the Registry
of vascular anomalies (VASCA)
Year
Journal Name
2017
Information Services & Use
2019
Briefings in Bioinformatics
2017
Information Services & Use
2018
Insights: The UKSG Journal
2018
Data Technologies and Applications
2019
Knowledge Organization
2018
Studies in Health Technology
and Informatics
2020
The data allow us to perceive that the authors with more scientific papers in the sample used in this study are Barend Mons, Cameron Neylon, Joachim Schöpfel, and Marco
Roos, who appear with two articles each. From this group of authors, it can be noted that
Publications 2022, 10, 31
16 of 38
Barend Mons and Cameron Neylon share the same article, which has a total of six authors.
The other paper with Barend Mons’ participation has a total of eight authors, while Cameron Neylon is the sole author of her second paper. Each of Joachim Schöpfel’s articles has
a total of four authors, while Marco Roos accounts for one article written by ten authors
and another by nine authors. Moreover, Marco Roos’ papers were published in the same
journal (Studies in Health Technology and Informatics).
Figure 10 presents the number of scientific papers from the sample, distributed by
the number of authors.
Figure 10. Number of scientific papers by number of authors.
Overall, the sample shows one paper with eleven authors [15], one with ten authors
[16], three with nine authors [17–19], two with eight authors [8,20], one with seven authors
[21], one with six authors [3], seven with four authors [7,9,22–26], two with three authors
[4,27], seven with two authors [10,28–33], and seven with one author (referring to the following authors: Cameron Neylon [1]; Bohyun Kim [34]; William H Walters [35]; Matthew
I. Bellgard [36]; Kai Nishikawa [37]; Ayla Stein Kenfield [38]; and David Wilcox [39]).
The research resulted in Barend Mons [40] obtaining a PhD in molecular biology from
Leiden University in 1986. His research focuses on malaria, in close collaboration with
endemic countries, and computer-assisted knowledge discovery. He was part (as an expert) of the INCO-DC European Commission program (1993–1996) and the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO 1966–1999). The author also co-founded several spin-off companies, such as the Biosemantics group. Currently, he is a professor in
biosemantics at the Leiden University Medical Center. He was also Head of ELIXIR-NL
at the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences (until 2015), Integrator Life Sciences at the Netherlands eScience Center, and board member of the Leiden Centre of Data Science. He was
one of the authors that, in 2014, initiated the FAIR data initiative and, in the following
year, was appointed Chair of the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group for
the “European Open Science Cloud” until 2016. Currently, Barend is an ambassador of
GO FAIR and co-founder of the GO FAIR initiative and was elected President of the Executive Committee of CODATA.
Cameron Neylon’s [41] earlier research focused on structural biology and biophysics
and on researchers’ culture, the political economy of research institutions, and how these
interact, and collide with, the changing technological environments. He is currently a professor of research communication at Curtin University, where he co-leads the Curtin Open
Knowledge Initiative, a project examining the future of universities in a networked world.
He is also a director of KU research and an advocate of open research practice who has
worked in research and support areas, including chemistry, advocacy, policy, technology,
publishing, political economy, and cultural studies. He was a contributor to the Panton
Publications 2022, 10, 31
17 of 38
Principles for Open Data, the Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructure, the altmetrics
manifesto, founding board member, and past president of FORCE11 and served on the
boards and advisory boards of organizations such as Impact Story, Crossref, altmetric.com, OpenAIRE, the LSE Impact Blog, and various editorial boards. His previous positions include Advocacy Director at PLOS, Senior Scientist (Biological Sciences) at the
STFC, and tenured faculty at the University of Southampton.
Joachim Schöpfel [42] holds a PhD in psychology from the University of Hamburg
and is a lecturer in information and communication sciences at the University of Lille and
a member of the GERiiCO laboratory. He is interested in scientific communication, in particular in open science and grey literature, and in the evolution of the functions, professions, and institutions of scientific and technical information. His current projects focus
on the use of digital resources in different contexts, on the link between informational
practices and scientific production, on the evolution of scientific information systems and
the link with research infrastructures and systems, on the legal aspects of scientific communication, and on the development of libraries and documentary services. He directed
the UFR IDIST from 2009 to 2012, was director of the Atelier National de la Reproduction
des Thèses from 2012 to 2018, and is responsible for the first year of the Master Information
Documentation in the SID department. He is an independent consultant and partner of
Ourouk, Paris.
Marco Roos [43–45] is an advocate of FAIR Data Principles and Linked Data to create
a powerful substrate and a robust worldwide infrastructure for knowledge discovery
across heterogeneous data distributed over institutes and countries. His earlier scientific
interest was in biology, regarding the role of chromatin in the functioning of the cell, to
bridge between genotype and phenotype using data linking techniques and data science.
After including computer science subjects in his MSc in molecular biology, Marco worked
as a multidisciplinary researcher in research groups of life science and computer science.
Currently, his research focuses on state-of-the-art computer science applied to enhancing
biomedical research, particularly for rare human diseases, and with knowledge discovery
and data linking techniques. As group leader of the Biosemantics research group of Prof.
Dr. Barend Mons, LUMC, he leads the research, development, and application of
knowledge discovery methods for human genetics research. He co-leads the rare disease
community of the European life science data infrastructure ELIXIR, FAIR Data Principles
at source’ activities in the European Joint Program Rare Diseases, and initiated the Rare
Diseases Global Open FAIR implementation network.
This allowed us to perceive that the most prominent authors have a career as professors in higher education and that the original scientific area of most of them is Biology,
except for Joachim Schöpfel, whose scientific area of origin is Psychology.
As stated earlier, since this paper is part of qualitative research, the results presented
at the current stage of research must be confirmed or tested by further research, gathering
data from other databases and information sources, to produce sound theoretical assumptions, and as a form of quality control.
This research takes into consideration the dynamic dimension of the phenomenon
under study. The need for continued research to ensure that the developments concerning
this phenomenon are captured is evident. This implies the periodic repetition of the same
research, which will allow comparison with the current dataset and its updating.
4. Conclusions
This paper is part of developing research focused on identifying and analyzing, in a
comparative way, the main programs and projects regarding, or making use, of FAIR Data
Principles at a worldwide level; identifying the main actors and contrasting their perceptions and meanings about the said principles; distinguishing the proposals and solutions
that will emerge from the analysis of perceptions and meaning related to the said principles. The intended future results of this research are a critical and trend-based theoretical
construction of the examined literature. This might allow us to formulate
Publications 2022, 10, 31
18 of 38
recommendations for the use of FAIR Data Principles, in addition to showing possible consensuses and dissents, uncertainties, and certainties behind what is perceived of the said
principles and their uses.
Our intention was, within the scope of cutting-edge international scientific literature,
to identify the main authors, entities, and scientific journals linked to research conducted,
with a special emphasis on the FAIR Data Principles since its inception. This allowed the
establishment of the general scenario in which research dedicated to or adopting FAIR
Principles takes place. Within this scope, the study of the researchers’ profiles affords better awareness of the original contexts of those who develop this type of research. For such
purpose, we defined questions regarding the authors, their locations, and professional
occupation; the organizations/entities where the authors perform their professional and
research activities, including the place where such entities are based; the journals where
and when the authors’ research was published; and the most prominent authors in terms
of authorship.
This research was developed by means of a qualitative approach, using documentary
research and a constant comparison method for codification and categorization of the
sampled data extracted from a final set of 32 documents.
In conclusion, it can be stated that, with regard to the authors in the sample, the majority are located in the Netherlands, that the European continent (including the United
Kingdom) accounts for more than 70% of the authors, and that the English-speaking countries (including Ireland) comprise just over one-third of the authors discussed in this paper. Four Asian authors are also noted (three from China and one from Japan). The only
authors located in the Southern Hemisphere are based in Australia.
Most of these authors are researchers, followed by information (LIS) professionals,
and thirdly, the professors in higher education institutions (a quarter of the authors in the
sample). Less than five percent of the authors are students.
There are also four CEOs, two independent consultants, and five authors that perform management roles.
More than half of the authors in the sample work in a higher education institution (either professionally or as students), with the institutions with more authors in this sample
being, ex aequo, the Delft University of Technology and the Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences. In addition to the research centers, private organizations, and governmental agencies,
there are types of entities represented by two authors (Independent Organisations) and one
author (International Reference Network, being the VASCERN Europe-a Reference Centre).
There are also two independent consultants (Jan Velterop and Caoimhín Kelly).
Since more than half of the organizations with which the authors of the sample are
associated are higher education institutions, these cover most of the territorial-administrative areas under consideration. Research centers account for more than one-sixth of the
countries in the sample. All types of entities exist in more than one country, including the
International Reference Network, as it is an international entity.
The preponderance of the United States, countrywide, can be seen in the number of
entities to which this sample refers, with 70% of the entities being from the European
world region (58.57% from the European Union) and the English-speaking countries (including Ireland) accounting for just over a third (37.14%). In the case of the higher education institutions considered in the sample, the United States is predominant, and the European Union countries represent more than a third (35.71%) of this type of institution. In
the case of the English-speaking countries, there is less than a quarter (24.3%) of the organizations in the sample. The Netherlands appears as the country with the broadest
range of entity types in the sample.
At the publication level, it can be seen that the journal where more texts of the sample
were published was Insights: The UKSG Journal, and most of the authors in the sample
were published in Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Most of the articles in the
sample published in this journal originate from authors from the Netherlands, followed
by authors located in Germany. In addition to Studies in Health Technology and Informatics,
Publications 2022, 10, 31
19 of 38
only Frontiers in Chemistry has articles written by more than ten authors in the sample.
This last journal appears in the sample with only one text whose authorship is shared by
the greatest number of authors in the sample, in addition to being the one with the greatest
number of authors from different geographical provenance (Czechia, France, Germany,
Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland). The journals Information Technology and Libraries, Applications in Plant Sciences, Digital Library Perspectives, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communications, Library Technology Reports, Briefings in Bioinformatics, International Journal of Librarianship, and International Journal of Information Management are, along with the journals with
a single author in the sample (International Journal of Information Management and Library
Technology Reports), the journals that only have articles in the sample from a single country. Most of the articles in the sample were published in 2020.
Finally, the most prominent authors in terms of authorship in the sample texts are
Barend Mons and Marco Roos, both from the Netherlands, Cameron Neylon (Australia),
and Joachim Schöpfel (France). Although delimited by the sample, this allows us to identify trends that, in further research, may be contrasted with data collected from a larger
number of sources and with broader research criteria. In this case, it was perceived that
the most prominent authors have a university professor career and that the scientific area
of origin of most of them is Biology, except Joachim Schöpfel, whose scientific area of
origin is Psychology.
This research takes into consideration the dynamic dimension of the phenomenon
under study. The need for continued research to ensure that the developments concerning
this phenomenon are captured is evident. This implies the periodic repetition of the same
research, which will allow comparison with the current dataset and its updating.
In future work, we will consider expanding the data gathering from other academic
journals, conference proceedings, reports, and theses from other databases and collections
as sources to verify and compare with the results obtained in the present study. It is also
intended to, by means of a trend analysis of the specific scientific literature, identify projects, initiatives, and programs of international expression on the FAIR Data Principles.
Moreover, it is intended to proceed to identify the authors and their thoughts, addressing the discussions, perceptions, and meanings that are carried out in and the around
this phenomenon. This will allow us to identify and analyze, in a comparative way, the
main programs and projects regarding, or making use, of FAIR Data Principles at a worldwide level; identify the main actors (also as a way of validation of the results brought out
by this paper) and contrast their perceptions and meanings about the said principles; and
distinguish the proposals and solutions that will emerge from the analysis of perceptions
and meaning related to the said principles. Since the current paper makes use of the CCM,
the future analysis and interpretation of the information corpus resulting from expanded
data gathering will be performed by the use of the Grounded Theory Method. Following
the particular nature of this methodology, the intended results are a critical and trendbased theoretical construction of the examined literature. This might allow the formulation of recommendations for the use of FAIR Data Principles, besides showing possible
consensuses and dissents, uncertainties, and certainties behind what is perceived as the
said principles and their uses.
We will also consider guiding the documentary research into developing an analysis
that will allow coding and categorization to discern thematic or typological distinctions regarding the research presented by the studied texts. This will also take into account the uses
of the concept of “fair principles” that are especially concerned with FAIR Data Principles.
Furthermore, future research will look into the scientific areas of origin of the researchers (those already found in this paper and others that will be presented with the
expanded data gathering). This will allow us to check the hypothesis that most of the authors who engage in this type of research have biology as their scientific area of origin, as
it was perceived by the analysis of the researchers’ profiles of the most prominent authors
in terms of authorship in the sample texts.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
20 of 38
The main limitation of this study is concerned with the amount of data retrieved and
the time needed for a deeper analysis, as this theme is already well documented in the
scientific literature. Nevertheless, it should be addressed that there were constraints with
the collection of the full texts of scientific papers due to the fact that most periodical publications are not freely accessible and are not part of the publishers’ contractual packages
with the institutions to which we belong. This matter is intrinsically linked to the question
of open science and affects the way research can be conducted.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available in Appendices A and B and on request from the
authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A—Tables
Table A1. List of papers analyzed.
Title
A data management workflow of biodiversity data from the field to data users
An open-source database model and collections management system for fish
scale and otolith archives
Applying the FAIR data principles to the
Registry of vascular anomalies
(VASCA)
Bioinformatics in the Netherlands: The
value of a nationwide community
Built to last! Embedding open science
principles and practice into European
universities
Chapter 2. The Digital Meets the Physical and the Biological
Authors
Rachel A. Hackett
Michael W. Belitz
Edward E. Gilbert
Anna K. Monfils
Elizabeth Tray
Adam Leadbetter
Will Meaney
Andrew Conway
Caoimhín Kelly
Niall Ó Maoiléidigh
Elvira de Eyto
Siobhan Moran
Deirdre Brophy
Bruna dos Santos Vieira
Karlijn Groenen
P.A.C. ‘T Hoen
Annika Jacobsen
Marco Roos
Rajaram Kaliyaperumal
Martijn Kersloot
Ronald Cornet
Leo Schultze Kool
Celia W. G. van Gelder
Rob W. W. Hooft
Merlijn N. van Rijswijk
Linda van den Berg
Ruben G. Kok
Marcel Reinders
Barend Mons
Jaap Heringa
Journal
#
Pages
Year
Applications in Plant
Sciences
7 (12)
2019
Ecological Informatics
59
2020
Studies in Health
Technology and Informatics
271
2020
Briefings in Bioinformatics
20 (2)
375–383
2019
Tiberius Ignat
Paul Ayris
Insights
33 (1)
1–19
2020
Bohyun Kim
Library Technology
Reports
56 (2)
8–17
2020
Publications 2022, 10, 31
Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting
the FAIR Data guiding principles for the
European Open Science Cloud
Community feedback on scholarly content: why it is important and why it
should be preserved
Data journals: incentivizing data access
and documentation within the scholarly
communication system
Data Papers as a New Form of
Knowledge Organization in the Field of
Research Data
Ensuring food integrity by metrology
and FAIR data principles
ERDMAS: An exemplar-driven institutional research data management and
analysis strategy
FAIR data principles and their application to speech and oral archives
FAIR Principles for Library, Archive
and Museum Collections: A proposal for
standards for reusable collections
How are research data governed at Japanese repositories? A knowledge commons perspective
How to Evaluate and Select a Data Repository for Humanities and Social Science: A Case Study of Fudan University
Data Repository for Humanities and Social Science
Initiatives, Concepts, and Implementation Practices of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Data
Principles in Health Data Stewardship
Practice: Protocol for a Scoping Review
21 of 38
Barend Mons
Cameron Neylon
Jan Velterop
Michel Dumontier
Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos
Mark D. Wilkinson
Information Services &
Use
37 (1)
49–56
2017
Heather Staines
Maryann E Martone
Insights
31
13
2018
William H Walters
Insights
33 (1)
18
2020
Knowledge Organization
46 (8)
622–638
2019
Frontiers in Chemistry
6
49
2018
50
337
2020
47 (4)
339–354
2018
Joachim Schöpfel
Dominic Farace
Hélène Prost
Antonella Zane
Michael Rychlik
Giovanna Zappa
Larraitz Añorga
Nastasia Belc
Isabel Castanheira
Olivier F.X. Donard
Lenka Kourimska
Nives Ogrinc
Marga C. Ocké
Karl Presser
Claudia Zoani
Matthew I. Bellgard
Silvia Calamai
Francesca Fontini
International Journal
of Information Management
Journal of New Music
Research
Lukas Koster
Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer
Code4Lib Journal
40
1
2018
Kai Nishikawa
ASLIB Journal of Information Management
72 (4)
671–685
2020
Shenqin Yin
Jilong Zhang
Menghao Jia
Jie Hu
Library Trends
69 (1)
125–137
2020
Esther Thea Inau
Jean Sack
Dagmar Waltemath
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke
Journal of Medical Internet Research
23 (2)
Library eArchiving with ZONTAL
Space and the Allotrope Data Format
Dennis Della Corte
Wolfgang Colsman
Ben Welker
Brian Rennick
Digital Library Perspectives
36 (1)
69–77
2020
Lives in Data: Prominent Data Librarians, Archivists and Educators Share
Their Thoughts
Kristi Thompson
Guoying Liu
International Journal
of Librarianship
2 (1)
66–72
2017
2021
Publications 2022, 10, 31
Metadata Documentation Practices at
ARL Institutional Repositories
22 of 38
Ayla Stein Kenfield
Portal: Libraries and
the Academy
Heather Andrews Mancilla
Marta Teperek
Jasper van Dijck
On a Quest for Cultural Change-SurKees den Heijer
veying Research Data Management
LIBER Quarterly
Robbert Eggermont
Practices at Delft University of TechnolEsther Plomp
ogy
Yasemin Turkyilmaz-van der Velden
Shalini Kurapati
Jannik Shaaf
Dennis Kadioglu
Jens Goebel
Christian-Alexander Behrendt
Studies in Health
OSSE Goes FAIR-Implementation of the
Marco Roos
Technology and InforFAIR Data Principles for an OpenDavid van Enckevort
matics
Source Registry for Rare Diseases
Frank Ückert
Fatlume Sadiku
Thomas O.F. Wagner
Holger Storf
Julian Hocker
Participatory design for ontologies: a
ASLIB Journal of InChristoph Schindler
case study of an open science ontology
formation ManageMarc Rittberger
for qualitative coding schemas
ment
Joachim Schöpfel
Research data management in the
Coline Ferrant
Data Technologies and
French National Research Center
Francis Andre
Applications
(CNRS)
Renaud Fabre
Research Data Management Services
Journal of LibrarianElise Gowen
and Strategic Planning in Libraries Toship and Scholarly
John J. Meier
day: A Longitudinal Study
Communication
Scientists’ Research Data Management
Bradley Wade Bishop
Portal: Libraries and
Questions: Lessons Learned at a Data
Rose M. Borden
the Academy
Help Desk
Social infrastructures in research communication: a personal view of the
Cameron Neylon
Insights
FORCE11 story
Supporting FAIR Data Principles with
David Wilcox
LIBER Quarterly
Fedora
Xenia Specka
Philipp Gärtner
Carsten Hoffmann
The BonaRes metadata schema for geoNikolai Svoboda
Computers and Geoscispatial soil-agricultural research data–
Markus Stecker
ences
Merging INSPIRE and DataCite
Udo Einspanier
metadata schemes
Kristian Senkler
M.A. Muqit Zoarder
Uwe Heinrich
Three camps, one destination: the interRosie Higman
Daniel Bangert
Insights
sections of research data management,
Sarah Jones
FAIR and Open
Marco Brandizi
Towards FAIRer Biological Knowledge
Ajit Singh
Journal of Integrative
Networks Using a Hybrid Linked Data
Christopher Rawlings
Bioinformatics
and Graph Database Approach
Keywan Hassani-Pak
19 (4)
667–699
2019
29 (1)
1
2019
253
209–213
2018
72 (4)
671–685
2020
52 (2)
248–265
2018
8 (1)
eP2336
2020
20 (4)
677–692
2020
31
8
2018
28 (1)
2018
132
33–41
2019
32 (1)
18
2019
15 (3)
2018
Publications 2022, 10, 31
23 of 38
Sara Gonzales
Matthew B. Carson
Guillaume Viger
Information TechnolLisa O’Keefe
40 (1)
User Testing with Microinteractions
ogy and Libraries
Norrina B. Allen
Joseph P. Ferrie
Kristi Holmes
# Volume and/or Issue Number of Journal where it was published.
1–16
2021
Table A2. Distribution of authors by country.
Country
Australia
Canada
China
Czechia
France
Germany
Ireland
Authors/Country
Cameron Neylon
Matthew I. Bellgard
Menghao Jia
David Wilcox
Guoying Liu
Kristi Thompson
Jie Hu
Jilong Zhang
Shenqin Yin
Lenka Kourimska
Francesca Frontini
Francis Andre
Hélène Prost
Joachim Schöpfel
Olivier F.X. Donard
Renaud Fabre
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke
Carsten Hoffmann
Christian-Alexander Behrendt
Christoph Schindler
Dagmar Waltemath
Daniel Bangert
Dennis Kadioglu
Esther Thea Inau
Fatlume Sadiku
Frank Ückert
Holger Storf
Jannik Shaaf
Jens Goebel
Julian Hocker
Kristian Senkler
M.A. Muqit Zoarder
Marc Rittberger
Markus Stecker
Michael Rychlik
Nikolai Svoboda
Philipp Gärtner
Thomas O.F. Wagner
Udo Einspanier
Uwe Heinrich
Xenia Specka
Adam Leadbetter
Number of
Authors/Country
% Authors/Country
3
2.34%
3
2.34%
3
2.34%
1
0.78%
6
4.69%
25
19.53%
9
7.03%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
24 of 38
Italy
Japan
The Netherlands
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
Andrew Conway
Caoimhín Kelly
Deirdre Brophy
Elizabeth Tray
Elvira de Eyto
Niall Ó Maoiléidigh
Siobhan Moran
Will Meaney
Antonella Zane
Claudia Zoani
Giovanna Zappa
Silvia Calamai
Kai Nishikawa
Annika Jacobsen
Barend Mons
Bruna dos Santos Vieira
Celia W. G. van Gelder
David van Enckevort
Dominic Farace
Esther Plomp
Heather Andrews Mancilla
Jaap Heringa
Jasper van Dijck
Karlijn Groenen
Kees den Heijer
Leo Schultze Kool
Linda van den Berg
Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva
Santos
Lukas Koster
Marcel Reinders
Marco Roos
Marga C. Ocké
Marta Teperek
Martijn Kersloot
Merlijn N. van Rijswijk
Michel Dumontier
P.A.C. (Peter-Bram) ‘T Hoen
Rajaram Kaliyaperumal
Rob W. W. Hooft
Robbert Eggermont
Ronald Cornet
Ruben G. Kok
Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer
Shalini Kurapati
Yasemin Turkyilmaz-van der
Velden
Isabel Castanheira
Nastasia Belc
Nives Ogrinc
Larraitz Añorga
Mark D. Wilkinson
Karl Presser
Tiberius Ignat
4
3.13%
1
0.78%
32
25%
1
1
1
0.78%
0.78%
0.78%
2
1.56%
2
1.56%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
25 of 38
UK
USA
USA/France
Ajit Singh
Christopher Rawlings
Jan Velterop
Keywan Hassani-Pak
Marco Brandizi
Paul Ayris
Rosie Higman
Sarah Jones
Anna K. Monfils
Ayla Stein Kenfield
Ben Welker
Bohyun Kim
Bradley Wade Bishop
Brian Rennick
Dennis Della Corte
Edward E. Gilbert
Elise Gowen
Guillaume Viger
Heather Staines
Jean Sack
John J. Meier
Joseph P. Ferrie
Kristi Holmes
Lisa O’Keefe
Maryann E Martone
Matthew B. Carson
Michael W. Belitz
Norrina B. Allen
Rachel A. Hackett
Rose M. Borden
Sara Gonzales
William H Walters
Wolfgang Colsman
Coline Ferrant
Total
8
6.25%
25
19.53%
1
128
0.78%
100%
Table A3. Authors’ professional occupation.
Professional Occupation
CEO
CEO/Researcher
Independent consultant
Information (LIS) professional
Authors Name
Dominic Farace
Tiberius Ignat
Wolfgang Colsman
Karl Presser
Caoimhín Kelly
Jan Velterop
Antonella Zane
Bohyun Kim
Brian Rennick
Bruna dos Santos Vieira
Elise Gowen
Esther Plomp
Guoying Liu
Heather Andrews Mancilla
Jasper van Dijck
Number of
Authors %
Authors
3
2.34%
1
0.78%
2
1.56%
25
19.53%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
26 of 38
Information (LIS) professional/Professor
IT professional
Management
Professor
Jean Sack
Jie Hu
Jilong Zhang
Karlijn Groenen
Kees den Heijer
Kristi Thompson
Lisa O’Keefe
Lukas Koster
Marta Teperek
Paul Ayris
Rosie Higman
Sara Gonzales
Sarah Jones
Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer
William H Walters
Yasemin Turkyilmaz-van der Velden
Ayla Stein Kenfield
John J. Meier
Ajit Singh
Andrew Conway
David Wilcox
Guillaume Viger
Hélène Prost
Jens Goebel
Kristian Senkler
Marco Brandizi
Markus Stecker
Rob W. W. Hooft
Robbert Eggermont
Rose M. Borden
Siobhan Moran
Udo Einspanier
Will Meaney
Heather Staines
Linda van den Berg
Maryann E Martone
Merlijn N. van Rijswijk
Anna K. Monfils
Barend Mons
Bradley Wade Bishop
Cameron Neylon
Dagmar Waltemath
Dennis Della Corte
Francesca Frontini
Holger Storf
Joachim Schöpfel
Joseph P. Ferrie
Kristi Holmes
Lenka Kourimska
Leo Schultze Kool
Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos
Marcel Reinders
Michael Rychlik
Norrina B. Allen
P.A.C. (Peter-Bram) ‘T Hoen
2
1.56%
15
11.72%
4
3.13%
20
15.62%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
27 of 38
Researcher
Researcher/ Management
Researcher/Professor
Student
Silvia Calamai
Michel Dumontier
Adam Leadbetter
Annika Jacobsen
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke
Carsten Hoffmann
Celia W. G. van Gelder
Christian-Alexander Behrendt
Christoph Schindler
Claudia Zoani
Daniel Bangert
David van Enckevort
Edward E. Gilbert
Elizabeth Tray
Elvira de Eyto
Fatlume Sadiku
Francis Andre
Giovanna Zappa
Isabel Castanheira
Jannik Shaaf
Julian Hocker
Kai Nishikawa
Larraitz Añorga
M.A. Muqit Zoarder
Marga C. Ocké
Mark D. Wilkinson
Matthew B. Carson
Matthew I. Bellgard
Nastasia Belc
Niall Ó Maoiléidigh
Nikolai Svoboda
Olivier F.X. Donard
Philipp Gärtner
Rajaram Kaliyaperumal
Shalini Kurapati
Shenqin Yin
Thomas O.F. Wagner
Uwe Heinrich
Xenia Specka
Martijn Kersloot
Christopher Rawlings
Deirdre Brophy
Dennis Kadioglu
Frank Ückert
Jaap Heringa
Keywan Hassani-Pak
Marc Rittberger
Marco Roos
Nives Ogrinc
Renaud Fabre
Ronald Cornet
Ruben G. Kok
Ben Welker
Coline Ferrant
Esther Thea Inau
37
28.91%
1
0.78%
12
9.38%
6
4.69%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
28 of 38
Menghao Jia
Michael W. Belitz
Rachel A. Hackett
Total
128
100%
Table A4. Distribution of authors per organization, by type of entity.
Institutions
Authors
International Reference Network
VASCERN European Reference Centre
Leo Schultze Kool
Governmental Agency
Adam Leadbetter
Andrew Conway
Elvira de Eyto
Marine Institute
Niall Ó Maoiléidigh
Siobhan Moran
Will Meaney
National Agency for New Technologies,
Claudia Zoani
Energy and Sustainable Economic DevelopGiovanna Zappa
ment
National Institute for Public Health and the
Marga C. Ocké
Environment
Higher Education Institution
Lukas Koster
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer
Arizona State University
Edward E. Gilbert
Ben Welker
Brigham Young University
Brian Rennick
Dennis Della Corte
Anna K. Monfils
Michael W. Belitz
Central Michigan University
Rachel A. Hackett
Curtin University
Cameron Neylon
Czech University of Life Sciences
Lenka Kourimska
Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences
Marc Rittberger
Esther Plomp
Heather Andrews Mancilla
Jasper van Dijck
Kees den Heijer
Delft University of Technology
Marcel Reinders
Marta Teperek
Robbert Eggermont
Shalini Kurapati
Yasemin Turkyilmaz-van der Velden
Jie Hu
Fudan University
Jilong Zhang
Shenqin Yin
Deirdre Brophy
Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology
Elizabeth Tray
Holger Storf
Jannik Shaaf
Goethe University Frankfurt
Jens Goebel
Thomas O.F. Wagner
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke
Greifswald Medical School
Dagmar Waltemath
Esther Thea Inau
Number of Authors
1
European Union
1
9
Country
% Authors
0.71%
0.71%
6.38%
Ireland
6
4.26%
Italy
2
1.42%
The Netherlands
1
0.71%
85
60.28%
The Netherlands
2
1.42%
USA
1
0.71%
USA
3
2.13%
USA
3
2.13%
Australia
Czechia
Germany
1
1
1
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
The Netherlands
9
6.38%
China
3
2.13%
Ireland
2
1.42%
Germany
4
2.84%
Germany
3
2.13%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health
Jožef Stefan Institute
29 of 38
Jean Sack
Nives Ogrinc
Annika Jacobsen
Barend Mons
Leiden University
Marco Roos
Rajaram Kaliyaperumal
Maastricht University
Michel Dumontier
Manhattan College
William H Walters
Joseph P. Ferrie
Kristi Holmes
Norrina B. Allen
Coline Ferrant
Northwestern University
Guillaume Viger
Lisa O’Keefe
Matthew B. Carson
Sara Gonzales
Paris Institute of Political Studies
Coline Ferrant
Elise Gowen
Penn State University
John J. Meier
Queensland University of Technology
Matthew I. Bellgard
Bruna dos Santos Vieira
Karlijn Groenen
Radboud University
Leo Schultze Kool
P.A.C. (Peter-Bram) ‘T Hoen
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Karl Presser
Technical University of Munich
Michael Rychlik
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Mark D. Wilkinson
Università degli Studi di Siena
Silvia Calamai
Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour
Olivier F.X. Donard
Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3
Francesca Frontini
University College London
Paul Ayris
University of Göttingen
Daniel Bangert
University of Groningen
David van Enckevort
Christian-Alexander Behrendt
University of Hamburg
Dennis Kadioglu
University of Hildesheim
Julian Hocker
University of Illinois
Ayla Stein Kenfield
Hélène Prost
University of Lille III
Joachim Schöpfel
University of Manchester
Rosie Higman
University of Michigan
Bohyun Kim
University of Padova
Antonella Zane
University of Paris VIII
Renaud Fabre
University of South Australia
Menghao Jia
University of Tennessee
Bradley Wade Bishop
University of Tsukuba
Kai Nishikawa
Guoying Liu
University of Windsor
Kristi Thompson
Jaap Heringa
Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos
Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam
Martijn Kersloot
Ronald Cornet
Independent Consultant
Consultant
Jan Velterop
Consultant
Caoimhín Kelly
Independent Organization
DuraSpace
David Wilcox
USA
1
0.71%
Slovenia
1
0.71%
The Netherlands
4
2.84%
The Netherlands
USA
1
1
0.71%
0.71%
USA
8
5.67%
France
1
0.71%
USA
2
1.42%
Australia
1
0.71%
The Netherlands
4
2.84%
Switzerland
Germany
Spain
Italy
France
France
UK
Germany
The Netherlands
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
Germany
2
1.42%
Germany
USA
1
1
0.71%
0.71%
France
2
1.42%
UK
USA
Italy
France
Australia
USA
Japan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
Canada
2
1.42%
The Netherlands
4
2.84%
2
1
1
2
1
1.42%
0.71%
0.71%
1.42%
0.71%
UK
Ireland
Canada
Publications 2022, 10, 31
GreyNet
Dominic Farace
Private Organization
Castor EDC, Amsterdam
Martijn Kersloot
Kristian Senkler
con Terra GmbH
Markus Stecker
Udo Einspanier
Heather Staines
Hypothesis
Maryann E Martone
Premotec GmbH
Karl Presser
Scientific Knowledge Services
Tiberius Ignat
Zontal, Inc
Wolfgang Colsman
Research Center
Centre for Electrochemical Technologies
Larraitz Añorga
Francis Andre
Centre National de la Recherche ScienHélène Prost
tifique
Renaud Fabre
Digital Curation Centre
Sarah Jones
Barend Mons
Celia W. G. van Gelder
Jaap Heringa
Linda van den Berg
Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences
Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos
Marco Roos
Merlijn N. van Rijswijk
Rob W. W. Hooft
Ruben G. Kok
Fatlume Sadiku
German Cancer Research Center
Frank Ückert
Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor RiIsabel Castanheira
cardo Jorge
Carsten Hoffmann
M.A. Muqit Zoarder
Nikolai Svoboda
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape
Research
Philipp Gärtner
Uwe Heinrich
Xenia Specka
Christoph Schindler
Leibniz Institute for Research and InforJulian Hocker
mation in Education
Marc Rittberger
National R&D Institute for Food BioreNastasia Belc
sources
The Netherlands eScience Centre
Barend Mons
Ajit Singh
Christopher Rawlings
Rothamsted Research
Keywan Hassani-Pak
Marco Brandizi
Sandia National Laboratories
Rose M. Borden
Total
30 of 38
The Netherlands
1
9
1
0.71%
6.38%
0.71%
Germany
3
2.13%
USA
2
1.42%
Switzerland
Switzerland
USA
Spain
1
1
1
33
1
0.71%
0.71%
0.71%
23.40%
0.71%
France
3
2.13%
UK
1
0.71%
The Netherlands
9
6.38%
Germany
2
1.42%
Portugal
1
0.71%
Germany
6
4.26%
Germany
3
2.13%
Romania
1
0.71%
The Netherlands
1
0.71%
UK
4
2.84%
USA
1
141
0.71%
100%
The Netherlands
Publications 2022, 10, 31
31 of 38
Table A5. Entities by type and country.
Australia Canada China Czechia France Germany
Governmental
Agency
Higher
Education
Institution
Independent
Consultant
Independent
Organization
International
Reference
Network
Private
Organization
Research
Centre
(e) *
(f) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
(a) *
(b) *
(c) *
(d) *
3
4.29%
100%
6.82%
1
1.43%
50%
2.27%
1
1.43%
100%
2.27%
1
1.43%
100%
2.27%
5
7.14%
83.33%
11.36%
The The
Portugal Romania Slovenia Spain Switzerland
Netherlands
1
1
1
1.43% 1.43%
1.43%
33.33% 33.33%
8.33%
33.33% 33.33%
33.33%
1
2
1
7
1
1
1
1.43% 2.86% 1.43%
10%
1.43% 1.43%
1.43%
33.33% 66.67% 100%
58.33%
100%
50%
33.33%
2.27% 4.55% 2.27%
15.91%
2.27% 2.27%
2.27%
1
1.43%
33.33%
50%
1
1.43%
8.33%
50%
International Ireland
7
10%
63.64%
15.91%
1
1.43%
50%
50%
Italy
Japan
UK
USA
2
10
2.86% 14.29%
40% 76.92%
4.55% 22.73%
1
1.43%
20%
50%
1
1.43%
100%
100%
3
4.29%
2
2.86%
1
1.43%
1
1.43%
1
1.43%
16.67%
8.33%
6
8.57%
1
1.43%
9.09%
16.67%
3
4.29%
27.27%
25%
11
15.71%
1
1.43%
3
4.29%
3
1
4.29% 1.43%
1
1.43%
8.33%
16.67%
2
2.86%
16.67%
16.67%
12
17.14%
2
2.86%
66.67%
33.33%
1
1.43%
100%
8.33%
1
1.43%
1
1.43%
100%
8.33%
1
1.43%
1
1.43%
1
1.43%
50%
8.33%
2
2.86%
3
4.29%
2
2.86%
15.38%
33.33%
2
1
2.86% 1.43%
40%
7.69%
16.67% 8.33%
5
13
7.14% 18.57%
Total
3
4.29%
4.29%
100%
44
62.86%
62.86%
100%
2
2.86%
2.86%
100%
2
2.86%
2.86%
100%
1
1.43%
1.43%
100%
6
8.57%
8.57%
100%
12
17.14%
17.14%
100%
70
100%
* (a) Organizations; (b) % Organizations; (c) % Organizations per Country; (d) Organizations per type; (e) Organizations per Country Total; (f) Organizations
Percentage Total.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
32 of 38
Table A6. Distribution of analyzed papers by scientific journals.
Journals
ISSN
Applications in Plant Sciences
Aslib Journal of Information Management
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Code4Lib Journal
Computers and Geosciences
Data Technologies and Applications
Digital Library Perspectives
Ecological Informatics
Frontiers in Chemistry
Information Services & Use
Information Technology and Libraries
Insights: The UKSG Journal
International Journal of Information Management
International Journal of Librarianship
Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Journal of New Music Research
Knowledge Organization
LIBER Quarterly
Library Technology Reports
Library Trends
Portal: Libraries and the Academy
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
2168-0450
2050-3814
1467-5463
1940-5758
0098-3004
2514-9288
2059-5824
1878-0512
2296-2646
1875-8789
2163-5226
2048-7754
0268-4012
2474-3542
1613-4516
2162-3309
1438-8871
0929-8215
0943-7444
1435-5205
1945-4538
0024-2594
1530-7131
0926-9630
#
% Texts
Texts
USA
1
3.13%
UK
2
6.25%
UK
1
3.13%
USA
1
3.13%
UK
1
3.13%
UK
1
3.13%
UK
1
3.13%
The Netherlands 1
3.13%
Switzerland
1
3.13%
The Netherlands 1
3.13%
USA
1
3.13%
UK
5 15.63%
UK
1
3.13%
USA
1
3.13%
Germany
1
3.13%
USA
1
3.13%
Canada
1
3.13%
The Netherlands 1
3.13%
Germany
1
3.13%
Germany
2
6.25%
USA
1
3.13%
USA
1
3.13%
USA
2
6.25%
European Union 2
6.25%
Total 32 100%
Country
Table A7. Number of authors per journal.
Journal
Applications in Plant Sciences
ASLIB Journal of Information Management
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Code4Lib Journal
Computers and Geosciences
Data Technologies and Applications
Digital Library Perspectives
Ecological Informatics
Frontiers in Chemistry
Information Services & Use
Information Technology and Libraries
Insights: The UKSG Journal
International Journal of Information Management
International Journal of Librarianship
Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Journal of New Music Research
Knowledge Organization
LIBER Quarterly
Library Technology Reports
Number of
Authors
4
4
8
2
9
4
4
9
11
6
7
9
1
2
4
2
4
2
4
9
1
% Authors
3.05%
3.05%
6.11%
1.53%
6.87%
3.05%
3.05%
6.87%
8.4%
4.58%
5.34%
6.87%
0.76%
1.53%
3.05%
1.53%
3.05%
1.53%
3.05%
6.87%
0.76%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
33 of 38
Library Trends
Portal: Libraries and the Academy
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
Total
4
3
18
131
3.05%
2.29%
13.74%
100%
Table A8. Geographical distribution of authors by journal.
Journals/Provenance of Authors
Applications in Plant Sciences
USA
ASLIB Journal of Information Management
Germany
Japan
Briefings in Bioinformatics
The Netherlands
Code4Lib Journal
The Netherlands
Computers and Geosciences
Germany
Data Technologies and Applications
France
USA/France
Digital Library Perspectives
USA
Ecological Informatics
Ireland
Frontiers in Chemistry
Czechia
France
Germany
Italy
The Netherlands
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
Information Services & Use
Australia
The Netherlands
Spain
UK
Information Technology and Libraries
USA
Insights: The UKSG Journal
Australia
Germany
Switzerland
UK
USA
International Journal of Information Management
Australia
International Journal of Librarianship
Canada
Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics
Number of
Authors
4
4
4
3
1
8
8
2
2
9
9
4
3
1
4
4
9
9
11
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
7
7
9
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
% Author
3.05%
3.05%
3.05%
2.29%
0.76%
6.11%
6.11%
1.53%
1.53%
6.87%
6.87%
3.05%
2.29%
0.76%
3.05%
3.05%
6.87%
6.87%
8.40%
0.76%
0.76%
0.76%
1.53%
0.76%
0.76%
0.76%
0.76%
0.76%
0.76%
4.58%
0.76%
2.29%
0.76%
0.76%
5.34%
5.34%
6.87%
0.76%
0.76%
0.76%
2.29%
2.29%
0.76%
0.76%
1.53%
1.53%
3.05%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
34 of 38
UK
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
USA
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Germany
USA
Journal of New Music Research
France
Italy
Knowledge Organization
France
Italy
The Netherlands
LIBER Quarterly
Canada
The Netherlands
Library Technology Reports
USA
Library Trends
Australia
China
Portal: Libraries and the Academy
USA
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics
Germany
The Netherlands
Total
4
2
2
4
3
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
9
1
8
1
1
4
1
3
3
3
18
8
10
131
3.05%
1.53%
1.53%
3.05%
2.29%
0.76%
1.53%
0.76%
0.76%
3.05%
1.53%
0.76%
0.76%
6.87%
0.76%
6.11%
0.76%
0.76%
3.05%
0.76%
2.29%
2.29%
2.29%
13.74%
6.11%
7.63%
100%
Publications 2022, 10, 31
35 of 38
Appendix B—Figures
Figure A1. Authors per journal.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
36 of 38
Figure A2. Geographical distribution of authors by journal.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
37 of 38
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Neylon, C. Social infrastructures in research communication: A personal view of the FORCE11 story. Insights 2018, 31, 8.
https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.404.
Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J.; Appleton, G.; Axton, M.; Baak, A.; Blomberg, N.; Boiten, J.-W.; da Silva
Santos, L.B.; Bourne, P.E.; et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 2016, 3,
160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Mons, B.; Neylon, C.; Velterop, J.; Dumontier, M.; da Silva Santos, L.O.B.; Wilkinson, M.D. Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting
the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud. Inf. Serv. Use 2017, 37, 49–56.
https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170824.
Higman, R.; Bangert, D.; Jones, S. Three camps, one destination: The intersections of research data management, FAIR and
Open. Insights 2019, 32, 18. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.468.
Lin, D.; Crabtree, J.; Dillo, I.; Downs, R.R.; Edmunds, R.; Giaretta, D.; De Giusti, M.; L’Hours, H.; Hugo, W.; Jenkyns, R.; et al.
The TRUST Principles for digital repositories. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0486-7.
NESTOR. NESTOR Endorsement of TRUST Principles; NESTOR: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2020. Available online:
https://www.langzeitarchivierung.de/Webs/nestor/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/2020EndorsementOfTrustPrinciples.html?nn=182510 (accessed on 25 May 2022).
Inau, E.T.; Sack, J.; Waltemath, D.; Zeleke, A.A. Initiatives, Concepts, and Implementation Practices of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Data Principles in Health Data Stewardship Practice: Protocol for a Scoping Review. J. Med.
Internet Res. 2021, 10, e22505. https://doi.org/10.2196/22505.
Van Gelder, C.W.G.; Hooft, R.W.W.; Van Rijswijk, M.N.; Van Den Berg, L.; Kok, R.G.; Heringa, J.; Reinders, M.; Mons, B. Bioinformatics in the Netherlands: The value of a nationwide community. Brief. Bioinform. 2019, 20, 375–383.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx087.
Brandizi, M.; Singh, A.; Rawlings, C.; Hassani-Pak, K. Towards FAIRer Biological Knowledge Networks Using a Hybrid Linked
Data and Graph Database Approach. J. Integr. Bioinform. 2018, 15, 20180023. https://doi.org/10.1515/jib-2018-0023.
Koster, L.; Woutersen-Windhouwer, S. FAIR Principles for Library, Archive and Museum Collections: A proposal for standards for
reusable collections. Code4Lib J. 2018, 40, 1. Available online: https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/13427 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
Silva, C. Investigação Documental. In Manual de Investigação Qualitativa; Gonçalves, S., Gonçalves, P.E., Marques, C., Eds.;
Pactor: Lisbon, Portugal, 2021; pp. 103–123.
Flick, U. Doing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018.
Glaser, B.G. The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Soc. Probl. 1965, 12, 436–445.
Bardin, L. Análise de Conteúdo; Edições 70: São Paulo, Brasil, 2011.
Rychlik, M.; Zappa, G.; Anorga, L.; Belc, N.; Castanheira, I.; Donard, O.; Kourimska, L.; Ogrinc, N.; Ocke, M.; Presser, K.; et al.
Ensuring
Food
Integrity
by
Metrology
and
FAIR
Data
Principles.
Front.
Chem.
2018,
6,
49.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00049.
Schaaf, J.; Goebel, J.; Storf, H.; Kadioglu, D.; Behrendt, C.-A.; Roos, M.; van Enckevort, D.; Ückert, F.; Sadiku, F.; Wagner, T.O.F.
OSSE Goes FAIR—Implementation of the FAIR Data Principles for an Open-Source Registry for Rare Diseases. Stud. Health
Technol. Inform. 2018, 253, 209–213.
Tray, E.; Brophy, D.; Leadbetter, A.; Meaney, W.; Conway, A.; Kelly, C.; Moran, S.; Maoiléidigh, N.Ó.; de Eyto, E. An opensource database model and collections management system for fish scale and otolith archives. Ecol. Inform. 2020, 59, 101115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101115.
Vieira, B.; Groenen, K.; Hoen, P.A.C.T.; Jacobsen, A.; Roos, M.; Kaliyaperumal, R.; Kersloot, M.; Cornet, R.; Koola, L.S. Applying
the FAIR data principles to the Registry of vascular anomalies (VASCA). Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2020, 271, 115–116.
https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI200085.
Specka, X.; Gärtner, P.; Hoffmann, C.; Svoboda, N.; Zoarder, M.A.M.; Heinrich, U.; Stecker, M.; Einspanier, U.; Senkler, K. The
BonaRes metadata schema for geospatial soil-agricultural research data—Merging INSPIRE and DataCite metadata schemes.
Comput. Geosci. 2019, 132, 33–41.
Mancilla, H.A.; Teperek, M.; van Dijck, J.; den Heijer, K.; Eggermont, R.; Plomp, E.; Turkyilmaz-van der Velden, Y.; Kurapati,
S. On a Quest for Cultural Change—Surveying Research Data Management Practices at Delft University of Technology. LIBER
Q. 2019, 29, 1.
Gonzales, S.; Carson, M.B.; Viger, G.; O’Keefe, L.; Allen, N.B.; Ferrie, J.P.; Holmes, K. User Testing with Microinteractions. Inf.
Technol. Libr. 2021, 40, 1–16.
Hackett, R.A.; Belitz, M.W.; Monfils, A.K.; Gilbert, E.E. A data management workflow of biodiversity data from the field to data
users. Appl. Plant Sci. 2019, 7, e11310. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.11310.
Schöpfel, J.; Farace, D.; Prost, H.; Zane, A. Data Papers as a New Form of Knowledge Organization in the Field of Research
Data. Knowl. Organ. 2019, 46, 622–638.
Yin, S.; Zhang, J.; Jia, M.; Hu, J. How to Evaluate and Select a Data Repository for Humanities and Social Science: A Case Study
of Fudan University Data Repository for Humanities and Social Science. Libr. Trends 2020, 69, 125–137.
Dennis, D.C.; Colsman, W.; Welker, B.; Rennick, B. Library eArchiving with ZONTAL Space and the Allotrope Data Format.
Digit. Libr. Perspect. 2020, 36, 69–77.
Publications 2022, 10, 31
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
38 of 38
Schöpfel, J.; Ferrant, C.; Francis, A.; Fabre, R. Research data management in the French National Research Center (CNRS). Data
Technol. Appl. 2018, 52, 248–265.
Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M. Participatory design for ontologies: A case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 72, 671–685.
Ignat, T.; Ayris, P. Built to last! Embedding open science principles and practice into European universities. Insights 2020, 33, 9.
Staines, H.; Martone, M.E. Community feedback on scholarly content: Why it is important and why it should be preserved.
Insights 2018, 31, 13.
Calamai, S.; Frontini, F. FAIR data principles and their application to speech and oral archives. J. New Music Res. 2018, 47, 339–354.
Thompson, K.; Liu, G. Lives in Data: Prominent Data Librarians, Archivists and Educators Share Their Thoughts. Int. J. Librariansh. 2017, 2, 66–72.
Gowen, E.; Meier, J.J. Research Data Management Services and Strategic Planning in Libraries Today: A Longitudinal Study. J.
Librariansh. Sch. Commun. 2020, 8, eP2336. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2336.
Bishop, W.B.; Borden, R.M. Scientists’ Research Data Management Questions: Lessons Learned at a Data Help Desk. Portal Libr.
Acad. 2020, 20, 677–692.
Kim, B. Chapter 2. The Digital Meets the Physical and the Biological. Libr. Technol. Rep. 2020, 56, 8–17.
Walters, W.H. Data journals: Incentivizing data access and documentation within the scholarly communication system. Insights
2020, 33, 18.
Bellgard, M.I. ERDMAS: An exemplar-driven institutional research data management and analysis strategy: SSIS. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 2020, 50, 337.
Nishikawa, K. How are research data governed at Japanese repositories? A knowledge commons perspective. Aslib J. Inf. Manag.
2020, 72, 837–852.
Ayla, S.K. Metadata Documentation Practices at ARL Institutional Repositories. Portal Libr. Acad. 2019, 19, 667–699.
Wilcox, D. Supporting FAIR Data Principles with FEDORA. LIBER Q. 2018, 28, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10247.
CODATA Officers and Executive Commitee. Available online: https://codata.org/about-codata/executive-committee/ (accessed
on 30 June 2022).
Science in the Open—The Online Home of Cameron Neylon. Available online: https://cameronneylon.net/about/biographies/
(accessed on 30 June 2022).
Enseignants-Chercheurs, Chercheurs, Enseignants de la Université de Lille. Available online: https://pro.univ-lille.fr/joachimschopfel/ (accessed on 30 June 2022).
Homepage of Marco Roos. Available online: https://www.nanopubmed.org/?content=MyShortCV (accessed on 30 June 2022).
Leiden University Medical Center—Marco Roos Assistant Professor. Available online: https://www.lumc.nl/org/humane-genetica/medewerkers/marco-roos (accessed on 30 June 2022).
Leiden University Medical Center—Marco Roos (PhD). Available online: https://www.lumc.nl/org/bioinformatica/medewerkers/909290026392525 (accessed on 30 June 2022).