Search results

One of the currently debated changes in scientific practice is the implementation of data sharing requirements for peer-reviewed publication to increase transparency and intersubjective verifiability of results. However, it seems that data sharing is a not fully adopted behavior among researchers. The theory of planned behavior was repeatedly applied to explain drivers of data sharing from the perspective of data donors (researchers). However, data sharing can be viewed from another perspective as well: survey participants. The research questions (RQs) for this study were as follows: 1 Does data sharing increase participant's nonresponse? 2 Does data sharing influence participant's response behavior? The purpose of this paper is to address these issues.

To answer the RQs, a mixed methods approach was applied, consisting of a qualitative prestudy and a quantitative survey including an experimental component. The latter was a two-group setup with an intervention group (A) and a control group (B). A list-based recruiting of members of the Medical Faculty of the University of Freiburg was applied for 15 days. For exploratory data analysis of dropouts and nonresponse, we used Fisher's exact tests and binary logistic regressions.

In sum, we recorded 197 cases for Group A and 198 cases for Group B. We found no systematic group differences regarding response bias or dropout. Furthermore, we gained insights into the experiences our sample made with data sharing: half of our sample already requested data of other researchers or shared data on request of other researchers. Data repositories, however, were used less frequently: 28% of our respondents used data from repositories and 19% stored data in a repository.

To the authors’ knowledge, their study is the first study that includes researchers as survey subjects investigating the effect of data sharing on their response patterns.

Despite the widespread use of authentication schemes and the rapid emergence of novel authentication schemes, a general set of domain-specific guidelines has not yet been developed. This paper aims to present and explain a list of human-centered guidelines for developing usable authentication schemes.

The guidelines stem from research findings within the fields of psychology, human–computer interaction and information/computer science.

Instead of viewing users as the inevitable weak point in the authentication process, this study proposes that authentication interfaces be designed to take advantage of users’ natural abilities. This approach requires that one understands how interactions with authentication interfaces can be improved and what human capabilities can be exploited. A list of six guidelines that designers ought to consider when developing a new usable authentication scheme has been presented.

This consolidated list of usable authentication guidelines provides system developers with immediate access to common design issues impacting usability. These guidelines ought to assist designers in producing more secure products in fewer costly development cycles.

Cybersecurity research and development has mainly focused on technical solutions to increase security. However, the greatest weakness of many systems is the user. It is argued that authentication schemes with poor usability are inherently insecure, as users will inadvertently weaken the security in their efforts to use the system. The study proposes that designers need to consider the human factors that impact end-user behavior. Development from this perspective will address the greatest weakness in most security systems by increasing end-user compliance.