Abstract : Data sharing in research is shaped by the interplay between governance maturity, regulatory risk, and intellectual property clarity. Institutions with robust governance systems and standardized licensing frameworks can foster responsible openness while protecting privacy and security. A balanced approach that integrates compliance, security, and openness is crucial to sustaining innovation and trust in the 21st-century research landscape. This study investigates how privacy, security, and intellectual property (IP) governance influence data-sharing practices in research. In the era of open science, the balance between protecting sensitive data and fostering collaborative knowledge creation is a critical challenge. Using a quantitative cross-sectional survey of researchers from academia and industry (n = 174), this paper tests the effects of regulatory risk and data-governance maturity on willingness to share data, with licensing clarity as a moderating variable. Results reveal that strong governance maturity encourages data sharing, while regulatory risks discourage it. However, the presence of clear and standardized licensing significantly mitigates the negative impact of regulatory risks. Implications for researchers, institutions, and policymakers are discussed.
Keywords : Data Governance, Privacy, Security, Intellectual Property, Open Science, Licensing.
Cite : Kumar, V., Iqbal, S. A., Gopalan, M. S., Yadav, Y., & Agarwal, K. (2025). Data Privacy, Security And Intellectual Property Concerns In Research (1st ed., pp. 12-21). Noble Science Press. https://noblesciencepress.org/chapter/nspeb-rt21stcmtocc2025ch-02
References :
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465
Creative Commons. (2019). Guide to research licensing. https://creativecommons.org
European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2020). Privacy framework: A tool for improving privacy through enterprise risk management. NIST.
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158.
Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57(6), 1701–1777.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2014). Big data and privacy: A technological perspective. Executive Office of the President.
Shabani, M., & Borry, P. (2016). Rules for processing genetic data for research purposes in Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24(12), 1681–1685. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.96
Solove, D. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/40041279
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on open science. UNESCO.
Wilkinson, M. D., et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2018). Intellectual property and open science—Policy considerations. WIPO.
