Mining Open Government Data Used in Scientific Research

  • An YanEmail author
  • Nicholas Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10766)


In the following paper, we describe results from mining citations, mentions, and links to open government data (OGD) in peer-reviewed literature. We inductively develop a method for categorizing how OGD are used by different research communities, and provide descriptive statistics about the publication years, publication outlets, and OGD sources. Our results demonstrate that, 1. The use of OGD in research is steadily increasing from 2009 to 2016; 2. Researchers use OGD from 96 different open government data portals, with and being the most frequent sources; and, 3. Contrary to previous findings, we provide evidence suggesting that OGD from developing nations, notably India and Kenya, are being frequently used to fuel scientific discoveries. The findings of this paper contribute to ongoing research agendas aimed at tracking the impact of open government data initiatives, and provides an initial description of how open government data are valuable to diverse scientific research communities.


Open data Literature mining Research policy E-government 



This research was supported in part by IMLS grant # RE-40-16-0015-16. Supporting data and in-depth explanation of the methods used in this study can be found at


  1. 1.
    Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C.: Transparency and technological change: ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(4), 371–376 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davies, T.: Open data, democracy and public sector reform. A look at open government data use from (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Marijn, J.: Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a framework for comparison. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(1), 17–29 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruen, N., Houghton, J., Tooth, R.: Open for business: how open data can help achieve the G20 growth target (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zuiderwijk, A., Marijn, J., Yogesh, K.D.: Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 429–440 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bright, J., Margetts, H.Z., Wang, N., Hale, S.A.: Explaining usage patterns in Open Government Data: the case of Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2613853 (2015).
  7. 7.
    Young, M., Yan, A.: Civic hackers user experiences and expectations of Seattle’s open municipal data program. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017).
  8. 8.
    Safarov, I., Meijer, A., Grimmelikhuijsen, S.: Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Inf. Polit. 22(1), 1–24 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, E.G., Helbig, N., Birkhead, G.S.: Opening health data: what do researchers want? Early experiences with New York’s open health data platform. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 21(5), E1–E7 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fecher, B., Friesike, S., Hebing, M.: What drives academic data sharing? PloS ONE 10(2), e0118053 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis, J.R., Gary, G.K.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biom. 33(1), 159–174 (1977). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thorsby, J., Stowers, G.N., Wolslegel, K., Tumbuan, E.: Understanding the content and features of open data portals in American cities. Gov. Inf. Q. 34(1), 53–61 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kassen, M.: A promising phenomenon of open data: a case study of the Chicago open data project. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(4), 508–513 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evans, J., Kaptoge, S., Caleyachetty, R., Di Angelantonio, E., Lewis, C., Parameshwar, K., Pettit, S.J.: Socioeconomic deprivation and survival after heart transplantation in England an analysis of the United Kingdom transplant registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 9(6), 695–703 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Okotto, L., Okotto-Okotto, J., Price, H., Pedley, S., Wright, J.: Socio-economic aspects of domestic groundwater consumption, vending and use in Kisumu, Kenya. Appl. Geogr. 58, 189–197 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zheng, Y., Liu, T., Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Liu, Y., Chang, E.: Diagnosing New York city’s noises with ubiquitous data. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 715–725. ACM, New York (2014).
  17. 17.
    Graves, A., Hendler, J.: A study on the use of visualizations for open government data. Inf. Polit 19, 73–91 (2014). Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Croft, B., Wentworth, G.R., Martin, R.V., Leaitch, W.R., Murphy, J.G., Murphy, B.N., Kodros, J.K., Abbatt, J.P., Pierce, J.R.: Contribution of Arctic seabird-colony ammonia to atmospheric particles and cloud-albedo radiative effect. Nat. commun. 7, 13444 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Silva, A.M., Gkolia, P., Carpenter, L., Cole, D.: Developing a model to assess community-level risk of oral diseases for planning public dental services in Australia. BMC Oral Health 16(1), 45 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Information SchoolUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations