A methodology for scientific cyberinfrastructure sustainability research

被引：0

作者：

Allard G. ^{[1
]}

Allard S. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Clemson University, United States

[2] University of Tennessee, United States

来源：

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology | 2018年 / 55卷 / 01期

关键词：

Cyberinfrastructure; intellectual property rights; research methodology; sustainability; technology transfer;

D O I：

10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501098

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Scientific cyberinfrastructure (SCI), defined as “the distributed computer, information and communication technologies combined with the personnel and integrating components that provide a long-term platform to empower the modern scientific research endeavor” (Atkins et al., 2003), is a foundation for the modern scientific enterprise and open science. Establishing persistent SCI requires an understanding of the essential topics related to cyber-infrastructure sustainability. We add to the study of SCI sustainability by focusing on the roles of financing structure and property rights. The Sustainability Transitions Outcomes Research Methodology (STORM) is a reproducible technique which opens the door for conversations that are based on existing data and from which scholars can derive axioms to help explain and predict the SCI sustainability. STORM provides steps for quantitatively categorizing financing, property rights, and outputs against cardinal metrics such as revenue, costs, and consumption of the resource. Our findings are presented with an interactive web application. Copyright © 2018 by Association for Information Science and Technology

引用

页码：743 / 744

页数：1

共 12 条

[1]

Borgman C.L., Darch P.T., Sands A.E., Wallis J.C., Traweek S., IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 257-266, (2014)

[2]

Darch P.T., Managing the Public to Manage Data: Citizen Science and Astronomy, International Journal of Digital Curation, 9, 1, pp. 25-40, (2014)

[3]

Douglass K., Allard S., Tenopir C., Wu L., Frame M., Managing scientific data as public assets: Data sharing practices and policies among full-time government employees, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 2, pp. 251-262, (2014)

[4]

Fidler B., Acker A., Metadata, infrastructure, and computer-mediated communication in historical perspective, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 2, pp. 412-422, (2017)

[5]

Grudin J., Return on Investment and Organizational Adoption, pp. 324-327, (2004)

[6]

Hess C., Ostrom E., Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice, (2007)

[7]

Keeney R.L., Raiffa H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs, (1993)

[8]

Kim Y., Stanton J.M., Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists’ data-sharing behaviors: A multilevel analysis, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 4, pp. 776-799, (2016)

[9]

Ostrom E., Hess C., A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice, (2007)

[10]

Shankar K., Eschenfelder K., Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 1, pp. 595-598, (2017)

← 1 2 →