Reframing data papers as boundary objects: aligning data narratives with reuse-oriented user expectations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31iConf64123Keywords:
Data paper, Data reuse, Boundary objects, Narrative structure, Reuser expectationsAbstract
Introduction. This study investigates how the narrative structure of data papers, as boundary objects, aligns with the needs of data reusers, focusing on both document structure and reusers’ preferences.
Method. Two approaches were employed: (1) a textual analysis of discourse components and data events, and (2) an exploration of reusers’ preferences and perceived use value through interviews.
Analysis. A total of 210 data papers were randomly sampled for content analysis. Interview data were analysed using both inductive and deductive thematic analysis.
Results. Data papers share several discourse components with traditional academic papers but also include unique components such as Data Value (V), Usage Notes (U), Data Availability (A), and Quality Control (Q). A total of 18 types of data events were identified. Data reusers' needs were categorized into five dimensions: data collection, content, structure, analysis, and reuse. Reusers perceive the functional, social, and cognitive value of data papers through research actions.
Conclusion(s). Data papers meet foundational needs in discovery, filtering, and comprehension, but fail to address application-level needs like trust assessment, accessibility, and reconstruction hints. This study also indicates the importance of data papers’ linking with data repositories and corresponding academic papers.
References
Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in the networked world. MIT press.
Borgman, C. L., & Groth, P. T. (2024). From data creator to data reuser: Distance matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07926.
Björk, L. (2015). How reproductive is a reproduction?: Digital transmission of text-based documents. Ph.D. thesis, University of Borås, Borås.
Boell, S. K., & Hoof, F. (2015). Using Heider’s epistemology of thing and medium for unpacking the conception of documents: Gantt charts and boundary objects. Proceedings from the Document Academy, 2(1), 3.
Börjesson, L., Sköld, O., Friberg, Z., Löwenborg, D., Pálsson, G., & Huvila, I. (2022). Re-purposing excavation database content as paradata: an explorative analysis of paradata identification challenges and opportunities. KULA, 6(3), 1-18.
Chao, T. (2015). Mapping methods metadata for research data. International Journal of Digital Curation, 10(1), 82-94.
Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., & Tani, A. (2015). Data journals: A survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1747-1762.
Callaghan, S., Donegan, S., Pepler, S., Thorley, M., Cunningham, N., Kirsch, P., Ault, L., Bell, P.J., Bowie, R.C., Leadbetter, A.M., Lowry, R.K., Moncoiffe, G., Harrison, K., Smith-Haddon, B., Weatherby, A., & Wright, D.G. (2012). Making Data a First Class Scientific Output: Data Citation and Publication by NERC's Environmental Data Centres. Int. J. Digit. Curation, 7, 107-113.
Campbell, H. A., Micheli-Campbell, M. A., & Udyawer, V. (2019). Early career researchers embrace data sharing. Trends in ecology & evolution, 34(2), 95-98.
Chavan, V., & Penev, L. (2011). The data paper: a mechanism to incentivise data publishing in biodiversity science. BMC bioinformatics, 12(Suppl 15), S2.
Das, A. K. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science: an upcoming milestone in global science. Science Diplomacy, 39.
Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A. L., Bowker, G. C., & Borgman, C. L. (2011). Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration. Social studies of science, 41(5), 667-690.
Frohmann, B. (2004). Deflating information: From science studies to documentation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Faniel, I. M., & Yakel, E. (2017). Practices do not make perfect: Disciplinary data sharing and reuse practices and their implications for repository data curation. Curating research data, volume one: Practical strategies for your digital repository, 1, 103-126.
Gregory, K., Groth, P., Cousijn, H., Scharnhorst, A., & Wyatt, S. (2019). Searching data: a review of observational data retrieval practices in selected disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(5), 419-432.
Gregory, K., Ninkov, A., Ripp, C., Roblin, E., Peters, I., & Haustein, S. (2023). Tracing data: A survey investigating disciplinary differences in data citation. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(3), 622-649.
Huvila, I. (2011). The politics of boundary objects: hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2528-2539.
Huvila, I. (2022). Improving the usefulness of research data with better paradata. Open Information Science, 6(1), 28-48.
Huvila, I., Andersson, L., & Sköld, O. (2025). Researchers' data processing descriptions—Understanding paradata creation practices and their underpinning instrumentalities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
Huvila, I., & Sinnamon, L. (2022). Sharing research design, methods, and process information in and out of academia. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.611
Kim, J. (2020). An analysis of data paper templates and guidelines: types of contextual information described by data journals. Science Editing, 7(1), 16-23.
Koesten, L., Gregory, K., Groth, P., & Simperl, E. (2021). Talking datasets–understanding data sensemaking behaviours. International journal of human-computer studies,146, 102562.
Li, K., Greenberg, J., & Dunic, J. (2020). Data objects and documenting scientific processes: An analysis of data events in biodiversity data papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(2), 172-182.
Li, K., & Jiao, C. (2022). The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object: A content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(6), 834-846.
Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., ... & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS biology, 18(7), e3000737.
Moreau, L., Clifford, B., Freire, J., Futrelle, J., Gil, Y., Groth, P., ... & Van den Bussche, J. (2011). The open provenance model core specification. Future generation computer systems, 27(6), 743-756.
Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Watkinson, A., Świgon, M., Xu, J., ... & Herman, E. (2018). Early career researchers: Observing how the new wave of researchers is changing the scholarly communications market. Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, (15).
Østerlund, C., & Crowston, K. (2019). Documentation and access to knowledge in online communities: Know your audience and write appropriately? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(6), 619-633.
Penev, L., Chavan, W., Georgiev, T., & Stoev, P. (2012). Data papers as incentives for opening biodiversity data: one year of experience and perspectives for the future. Poster présenté à EU BON: Building the European Biodiversity Observation Network.
Plale, B., & Kouper, I. (2017). The centrality of data: data lifecycle and data pipelines. In Data analytics for intelligent transportation systems (pp. 91-111). Elsevier.
Roa-Martinez, S. M., Vidotti, S. A., & Santana, R. C. (2017). Proposed structure of a data paper structure as scientific publication. Revista Espanola De Documentacion Cientifica, 12.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schöpfel, J., Farace, D., Prost, H., & Zane, A. (2019). Data papers as a new form of knowledge organisation in the field of research data. KO KNOWLEDGE ORGANISATION,46(8), 622-638.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations, and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420.
Voss, B. L. (2012). Curation as research. A case study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues, 19(2), 145-169.
Wang, X., Duan, Q., & Liang, M. (2021). Understanding the process of data reuse: An extensive review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(9), 1161-1182.
Yeo, G. (2008). Concepts of Record (2): Prototypes and Boundary Objects. American Archivist, 71(1), 118–143.
Zins, C. (2007). Conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 58(4), 479-493.
Zhang, L., Kopak, R., Freund, L., & Rasmussen, E. (2010). A taxonomy of functional units for information use of scholarly journal articles. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-10.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Cuiyu Qin, Qingyu Duan, Lei Xu, Xiaoguang Wang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
