Transparency as design choice of open data contests
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, ISSN: 2330-1643, Vol: 69, Issue: 10, Page: 1205-1222
2018
- 6Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Open data contests have become popular virtual events that motivate civic hackers to design high performing software applications that are useful and useable for citizens. However, such contests stir up controversy among scholars and practitioners about the role of transparency, or more specifically, the unrestricted access and observability of the applications submitted throughout the contest. In one view, transparency may reduce performance because it causes excessive replication, whereas another view argues that transparency can encourage novel forms of reuse, namely recombination. This article proposes a new perspective towards transparency as a design choice in open data contest architectures. We introduce a 2-dimensional view towards transparency, defined as observability of information about each submitted (a) solution (how it works) and its (b) performance (how high it scores). We design a sociotechnical contest architecture that jointly affords both transparency dimensions, and evaluate it in the field during a 21-day contest involving 28 participants. The results suggest that the joint instantiation of both transparency dimensions increases performance by triggering different kinds of recombination. Findings advance literature on sociotechnical architectures for civic design. Furthermore, they guide practitioners in implementing open data contests and balancing the tension between individual versus collective benefits.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know