Data Publications

Survey of Digital Data Management Practices at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

hasData_Center_Short_Name
  • Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ
hasDataset_Online_Resource
hasDataset_Release_Date
  • 2019
hasDataset_Title
  • Survey of Digital Data Management Practices at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
hasEntry_ID
  • 10.5880/GFZ.LIS.2019.001
hasKeyword
  • data management survey
hasSummary
  • This publication contains tabular summaries of the data management survey carried out at the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, as well as the diagrams of individual questions shown in Radosavljevic et al. (2019). The online survey was conducted from August 27 to September 27, 2019. The survey design leaned on similar surveys carried out at German universities and research institutions (e.g. Paul-Stüve et al., 2015; Simukovic et al., 2013) The survey queried aspects of the complete data life cycle - from the planning stage to reuse in 37 questions: 16 single response (SR); where only one answer was possible, and 20 multiple response (MR) where multiple answers could be selected, and one free text question. Research staff at all career levels was the target audience for the survey. Invitations to participate in the completely anonymous online survey were sent out over the general GFZ lists. The survey was carried out with the Questback EFS Survey platform. 226 attempts, out of 411, led to completed questionnaires corresponding to a 55% completion rate. Compared to the target audience at GFZ, the participation rate amounted to ca. 24%. However, less than 20% of employees classified as infrastructure support employees or bachelor’s and master’s students and student assistants completed the survey. Replies falling into these categories were grouped into “others” in the report as well as in the data presented here. Data summaries are given in two tab-separated tables corresponding to response counts or percentage for each question. These are grouped by department, role and employment length. Questions 5 and 34 were ranking questions and the corresponding responses in the percentages table represent arithmetic means of the replies for these questions – not percentages. The response counts for these question are presented in the “Counts” table. Free text replies are omitted from these results. In addition, the diagrams of individual questions are presented Radosavljevic et al. (2019) are also provided in png and pdf formats.