An understanding of the similar and divergent metrics and methodologies underlying open government data benchmarks can reduce the risks of the potential misinterpretation and misuse of benchmarking outcomes by policymakers, politicians, and researchers. Hence, this study aims to compare the metrics and methodologies used to measure, benchmark, and rank governments' progress in open government data initiatives. Using a critical meta-analysis approach, we compare nine benchmarks with reference to meta-data, meta-methods, and meta-theories. This study finds that both existing open government data benchmarks and academic open data progress models use a great variety of metrics and methodologies, although open data impact is not usually measured. While several benchmarks’ methods have changed over time, and variables measured have been adjusted, we did not identify a similar pattern for academic open data progress models. This study contributes to open data research in three ways: 1) it reveals the strengths and weaknesses of existing open government data benchmarks and academic open data progress models; 2) it reveals that the selected open data benchmarks employ relatively similar measures as the theoretical open data progress models; and 3) it provides an updated overview of the different approaches used to measure open government data initiatives’ progress. Finally, this study offers two practical contributions: 1) it provides the basis for combining the strengths of benchmarks to create more comprehensive approaches for measuring governments’ progress in open data initiatives; and 2) it explains why particular countries are ranked in a certain way. This information is essential for governments and researchers to identify and propose effective measures to improve their open data initiatives.

对公开政府数据基准所基于的相似和不同的指标和方法的理解可以减少决策者，政客和研究人员潜在的误解和滥用基准结果的风险。因此，本研究旨在比较用于衡量，基准化和排名政府在公开政府数据计划中的进展的指标和方法。使用关键的荟萃分析方法，我们比较了九种基准，分别参考了元数据，元方法和元理论。这项研究发现，尽管通常不衡量开放数据的影响，但现有的开放政府数据基准和学术开放数据进度模型都使用多种指标和方法。尽管一些基准测试的方法随时间发生了变化，并且对测量的变量进行了调整，但我们并未为学术开放数据进度模型找到类似的模式。这项研究通过以下三种方式为开放数据研究做出了贡献：1）揭示了现有开放政府数据基准和学术性开放数据进度模型的优缺点；2）它揭示了所选的开放数据基准测试与理论开放数据进度模型采用了相对相似的措施；3）提供了用于评估公开政府数据计划进度的不同方法的最新概述。最后，这项研究提供了两个实际的贡献：1）它为结合基准的优势提供了基础，以创建更全面的方法来衡量政府在开放数据计划中的进展；2）解释了为什么以某种方式对特定国家进行排名。这些信息对于政府和研究人员识别并提出有效措施以改善其开放数据计划至关重要。1）它为综合基准的优势提供基础，以创建更全面的方法来衡量政府在开放数据计划中的进展；2）解释了为什么以某种方式对特定国家进行排名。这些信息对于政府和研究人员识别并提出有效措施以改善其开放数据计划至关重要。1）它为综合基准的优势提供基础，以创建更全面的方法来衡量政府在开放数据计划中的进展；2）解释了为什么以某种方式对特定国家进行排名。这些信息对于政府和研究人员识别并提出有效措施以改善其开放数据计划至关重要。