We must all accept that science is data and that data are science, and thus provide for, and justify the need for the support of, much-improved data curation. (Hanson, Sugden, & Alberts) 
 
Researchers are producing an unprecedented deluge of data by using new methods and instrumentation. Others may wish to mine these data for new discoveries and innovations. However, research data are not readily available as sharing is common in only a few fields such as astronomy and genomics. Data sharing practices in other fields vary widely. Moreover, research data take many forms, are handled in many ways, using many approaches, and often are difficult to interpret once removed from their initial context. Data sharing is thus a conundrum. Four rationales for sharing data are examined, drawing examples from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities: (1) to reproduce or to verify research, (2) to make results of publicly funded research available to the public, (3) to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, and (4) to advance the state of research and innovation. These rationales differ by the arguments for sharing, by beneficiaries, and by the motivations and incentives of the many stakeholders involved. The challenges are to understand which data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. Answers will inform data policy and practice. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

科研数据共享的挑战 (The Conundrum of Sharing Research Data)

Despite widespread support from policy makers, funding agencies, and scientific journals, academic researchers rarely make their research data available to others. At the same time, data sharing in research is attributed a vast potential for scientific progress. It allows the reproducibility of study results and the reuse of old data for new research questions. Based on a systematic review of 98 scholarly papers and an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users, we develop a conceptual framework that explains the process of data sharing from the primary researcher’s point of view. We show that this process can be divided into six descriptive categories: Data donor, research organization, research community, norms, data infrastructure, and data recipients. Drawing from our findings, we discuss theoretical implications regarding knowledge creation and dissemination as well as research policy measures to foster academic collaboration. We conclude that research data cannot be regarded a knowledge commons, but research policies that better incentivize data sharing are needed to improve the quality of research results and foster scientific progress.

What Drives Academic Data Sharing

The threat that automation will eliminate a broad swath of jobs across the world economy is now well established. As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become ever more sophisticated, another wave of job displacement will almost certainly occur.

18 The Jobs That Artificial Intelligence Will Create

So-called 'social bots' have garnered a lot of attention lately. Previous research showed that they attempted to influence political events such as the Brexit referendum and the US presidential elections. It remains, however, somewhat unclear what exactly can be understood by the term 'social bot'. This paper addresses the need to better understand the intentions of bots on social media and to develop a shared understanding of how 'social' bots differ from other types of bots. We thus describe a systematic review of publications that researched bot accounts on social media. Based on the results of this literature review, we propose a scheme for categorising bot accounts on social media sites. Our scheme groups bot accounts by two dimensions - Imitation of human behaviour and Intent.

Do Social Bots Dream of Electric Sheep? A Categorisation of Social Media Bot Accounts

The legal and ethical issues that confront society due to Artificial Intelligence (AI) include privacy and surveillance, bias or discrimination, and potentially the philosophical challenge is the role of human judgment. Concerns about newer digital technologies becoming a new source of inaccuracy and data breaches have arisen as a result of its use. Mistakes in the procedure or protocol in the field of healthcare can have devastating consequences for the patient who is the victim of the error. Because patients come into contact with physicians at moments in their lives when they are most vulnerable, it is crucial to remember this. Currently, there are no well-defined regulations in place to address the legal and ethical issues that may arise due to the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare settings. This review attempts to address these pertinent issues highlighting the need for algorithmic transparency, privacy, and protection of all the beneficiaries involved and cybersecurity of associated vulnerabilities.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322/pdf

Legal and Ethical Consideration in Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Who Takes Responsibility?

With artificial intelligence (AI) becoming increasingly capable of handling highly complex tasks, many AI-enabled products and services are granted a higher autonomy of decision-making, potentially exercising diverse influences on individuals and societies. While organizations and researchers have repeatedly shown the blessings of AI for humanity, serious AI-related abuses and incidents have raised pressing ethical concerns. Consequently, researchers from different disciplines widely acknowledge an ethical discourse on AI. However, managers—eager to spark ethical considerations throughout their organizations—receive limited support on how they may establish and manage AI ethics. Although research is concerned with technological-related ethics in organizations, research on the ethical management of AI is limited. Against this background, the goals of this article are to provide a starting point for research on AI-related ethical concerns and to highlight future research opportunities. We propose an ethical management of AI (EMMA) framework, focusing on three perspectives: managerial decision making, ethical considerations, and macro- as well as micro-environmental dimensions. With the EMMA framework, we provide researchers with a starting point to address the managing the ethical aspects of AI.

Ethical Management of Artificial Intelligence

Organizations introduce virtual assistants (VAs) to support employees with work-related tasks. VAs can increase the success of teamwork and thus become an integral part of the daily work life. However, the effect of VAs on virtual teams remains unclear. While social identity theory describes the identification of employees with team members and the continued existence of a group identity, the concept of the extended self refers to the incorporation of possessions into one’s sense of self. This raises the question of which approach applies to VAs as teammates. The article extends the IS literature by examining the impact of VAs on individuals and teams and updates the knowledge on social identity and the extended self by deploying VAs in a collaborative setting. Using a laboratory experiment with N = 50, two groups were compared in solving a task, where one group was assisted by a VA, while the other was supported by a person. Results highlight that employees who identify VAs as part of their extended self are more likely to identify with team members and vice versa. The two aspects are thus combined into the proposed construct of virtually extended identification explaining the relationships of collaboration with VAs. This study contributes to the understanding on the influence of the extended self and social identity on collaboration with VAs. Practitioners are able to assess how VAs improve collaboration and teamwork in mixed teams in organizations.

/pdf/understanding-collaboration-with-virtual-assistants-the-role-fjpbvlxm9s.pdf

Understanding Collaboration with Virtual Assistants – The Role of Social Identity and the Extended Self

Background E-science technologies have significantly increased the availability of data. Research grant providers such as the European Union increasingly require open access publishing of research results and data. However, despite its significance to research, the adoption rate of open data technology remains low across all disciplines, especially in Europe where research has primarily focused on technical solutions (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework) or considered only parts of the issue. Methods and findings In this study, we emphasized the non-technical factors perceived value and uncertainty factors in the context of academia, which impact researchers' acceptance of open data-the idea that researchers should not only publish their findings in the form of articles or reports, but also share the corresponding raw data sets. We present the results of a broad quantitative analysis including N = 995 researchers from 13 large to medium-sized universities in Germany. In order to test 11 hypotheses regarding researchers' intentions to share their data, as well as detect any hierarchical or disciplinary differences, we employed a structured equation model (SEM) following the partial least squares (PLS) modeling approach. Conclusions Grounded in the value-based theory, this article proclaims that most individuals in academia embrace open data when the perceived advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, uncertainty factors impact the perceived value (consisting of the perceived advantages and disadvantages) of sharing research data. We found that researchers' assumptions about effort required during the data preparation process were diminished by awareness of e-science technologies (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework), which also increased their tendency to perceive personal benefits via data exchange. Uncertainty factors seem to influence the intention to share data. Effects differ between disciplines and hierarchical levels.

/pdf/when-are-researchers-willing-to-share-their-data-impacts-of-4f5198gouu.pdf

When are researchers willing to share their data? - Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia.

As social media has permeated large parts of the population it simultaneously has become a way to reach many people e.g. with political messages. One way to efficiently reach those people is the application of automated computer programs that aim to simulate human behaviour - so called social bots. These bots are thought to be able to potentially influence users' opinion about a topic. To gain insight in the use of these bots in the run-up to the German Bundestag elections, we collected a dataset from Twitter consisting of tweets regarding a German state election in May 2017. The strategies and influence of social bots were analysed based on relevant features and network visualization. 61 social bots were identified. Possibly due to the concentration on German language as well as the elections regionality, identified bots showed no signs of collective political strategies and low to none influence. Implications are discussed.

/pdf/strategies-and-influence-of-social-bots-in-a-2017-german-5cur4kra3k.pdf

Lennart Hofeditz

Papers

Ethical Management of Artificial Intelligence

Understanding Collaboration with Virtual Assistants – The Role of Social Identity and the Extended Self

When are researchers willing to share their data? - Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia.

Strategies and Influence of Social Bots in a 2017 German state election

Strategies and Influence of Social Bots in a 2017 German state election - A case study on Twitter