Intermediary or gatekeeper? Defining content responsibility boundaries of open research data platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31iConf64168Keywords:
Open research data, Data governance, Platform governance, Intermediary, GatekeepingAbstract
Introduction. Open research data platforms often position themselves as ‘intermediaries’ yet exercise ‘gatekeeper’ power through design and policy choices. Despite extensive content governance scholarship on social media platforms, research data platforms remain underexplored.
Method. I employ reflexive thematic analysis of publicly available documents from three platforms: Zenodo (publicly funded generalist), ICPSR (membership-based disciplinary), and Mendeley data (commercial publisher-integrated). This comparative approach examines how distinct platform types navigate content responsibility.
Results. Platforms transcend binary intermediary-gatekeeper distinctions through multi-dimensional responsibility allocation. I construct two themes: curatorial boundary-drawing between form and substance, where platforms moderate formal compliance while adopting different approaches to scientific curation; and selective responsibility allocation, whereby platforms delegate immediate legal liability to users while internalizing long-term archival stewardship.
Conclusion. I contribute a framework distinguishing ‘epistemic responsibility’ from ‘archival responsibility’ and propose a typology of infrastructural intermediary, disciplinary gatekeeper, and commercial hybrid models. I further argue for ‘directional flexibility,’ where gatekeepers can scale by adopting intermediary functions, whereas intermediary platforms face economic barriers to adopting substantive gatekeeping.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024). Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Palliative Medicine, 38(6), 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241234800
Busch, C. (2022). Regulating the expanding content moderation universe: A European perspective on infrastructure moderation. UCLA Journal of Law and Technology, 27(2), 32–79. https://uclajolt.com/regulating-the-expanding-content-moderation-universe-a-european-perspective-on-infrastructure-moderation/ (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20251227111350/https://uclajolt.com/regulating-the-expanding-content-moderation-universe-a-european-perspective-on-infrastructure-moderation/)
Celeste, E., Palladino, N., Redeker, D., & Yilma, K. (2023). The content governance dilemma. In D. L. Cogburn (Ed.), The content governance dilemma: Digital constitutionalism, social media, and the search for a global standard (pp. 7–25). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32924-1_2
Flew, T., Martin, F., & Suzor, N. (2019). Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
Frapporti, M. (2024). The politics of platforms: Exploring platforms’ infrastructural role and power. In S. Mezzadra, N. Cuppini, M. Frapporti, & M. Pirone (Eds.), Capitalism in the platform age (pp. 109–126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49147-4_6
Gillespie, T. (2018). Platforms are not intermediaries. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 2(2), 198–216. https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/platforms-are-not-intermediaries/GLTR-07-2018/ (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20251227105529/https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/platforms-are-not-intermediaries/GLTR-07-2018/)
Gorwa, R. (2019a). The platform governance triangle: Conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1407
Gorwa, R. (2019b). What is platform governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
Gorwa, R. (2019c, October 23). The shifting definition of platform governance. Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/shifting-definition-platform-governance/ (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20250717191208/https://www.cigionline.org/articles/shifting-definition-platform-governance/)
Gorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
Hansson, K., & Dahlgren, A. (2021). Open research data repositories: Practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(2), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24571
Hesmondhalgh, D., Campos Valverde, R., Kaye, D. B. V., & Li, Z. (2023). Digital platforms and infrastructure in the realm of culture. Media and Communication, 11(2), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6416
ICPSR. (2022, December 2). Data management & curation. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pages/datamanagement/ (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20251227104640/https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pages/datamanagement/)
ICPSR. (2025, November 11). ICPSR metadata schema. https://icpsr.github.io/metadata/icpsr_study_schema/ (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20251227105017/https://icpsr.github.io/metadata/icpsr_study_schema/)
Kim, Y. (2021). A study of the roles of metadata standard and data repository in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics researchers’ data reuse. Online Information Review, 45(7), 1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2020-0431
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2009). Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12615
Schöpfel, J., Prost, H., & Rebouillat, V. (2017). Research data in current research information systems. Procedia Computer Science, 106, 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.030
Schreier, A. A., Wilson, K., & Resnik, D. (2006). Academic research record-keeping: Best practices for individuals, group leaders, and institutions. Academic Medicine, 81(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200601000-00010
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zhengzheng Tian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
