Data sharing by researchers is a centerpiece of Open Science principles and scientific progress. For a sample of 6019 researchers, we analyze the extent/frequency of their data sharing. Specifically, the relationship with the following four variables: how much they value data citations, the extent to which their data-sharing activities are formally recognized, their perceptions of whether sufficient credit is awarded for data sharing, and the reported extent to which data citations motivate their data sharing. In addition, we analyze the extent to which researchers have reused openly accessible data, as well as how data sharing varies by professional age-cohort, and its relationship to the value they place on data citations. Furthermore, we consider most of the explanatory variables simultaneously by estimating a multiple linear regression that predicts the extent/frequency of their data sharing. We use the dataset of the State of Open Data Survey 2019 by Springer Nature and Digital Science. Results do allow us to conclude that a desire for recognition/credit is a major incentive for data sharing. Thus, the possibility of receiving data citations is highly valued when sharing data, especially among younger researchers, irrespective of the frequency with which it is practiced. Finally, the practice of data sharing was found to be more prevalent at late research career stages, despite this being when citations are less valued and have a lower motivational impact. This could be due to the fact that later-career researchers may benefit less from keeping their data private.

中文翻译：

---

研究人员的数据共享在多大程度上受到承认和信任的正式机制的激励？

研究人员的数据共享是开放科学原理和科学进步的核心。对于6019名研究人员的样本，我们分析了他们数据共享的程度/频率。具体而言，与以下四个变量之间的关系：他们对数据引用的重视程度，正式认可其数据共享活动的程度，对是否为数据共享授予足够信用的看法以及所报告的数据引用程度激发他们的数据共享。此外，我们分析了研究人员重用公开访问的数据的程度，以及数据共享如何随专业年龄段的变化而变化，及其与数据引用价值之间的关系。此外，我们通过估算可预测其数据共享程度/频率的多元线性回归，来同时考虑大多数解释变量。我们使用Springer Nature和Digital Science的2019年开放数据调查状况数据集。结果的确使我们得出结论，对认可/信用的渴望是数据共享的主要动力。因此，在共享数据时，尤其是在年轻的研究人员中，无论实践的频率如何，都非常重视接收数据引用的可能性。最后，发现数据共享的做法在研究生涯的后期阶段更为普遍，尽管当时引文的价值较低且动机影响较小。这可能是由于以下事实：较晚职业的研究人员从保持数据私密性中可能会受益较少。