Motivating metadata contributions for data re-use and reproducibility

Participants will receive personalized emails generated using different templates corresponding to different experimental conditions, all of which encourage them to contribute metadata to their published studies.

Subjects will receive personalized emails generated using three templates corresponding to the three experimental conditions. In the baseline template, we describe the task and invite subjects to provide metadata in a customized survey interface. In treatment 1 and treatment 2, we insert one extra paragraph into the baseline template that explains the findability implication of metadata.
Treatment 1 and treatment 2 are different in how the new paragraph concludes: in treatment 1, the individual benefit of future citations is made salient; in treatment 2, potential benefits to graduate students and other researchers are made salient.

2020-08-03

2020-09-30

Individual's willingness to participate;
Article-level metadata contribution.

We measure outcomes based on the quantity and quality of the metadata content. Subjects fill in the metadata fields for their assigned article (their own paper) through a Supplemental Metadata interface, distributed through a unique link imbedded in the treatment email.

Willingness to participate is recorded on an individual basis. In the body of the email, subjects choose to participate or to opt-out completely. We count those who are willing to proceed to our survey interface as willing to participate.

The other primary outcome is captured at the article level, as a count of the number of metadata fields that are populated by all subjects who belong to the article.

willingness to directly update metadata; self-reported motivation for contributing to metadata

The metadata for articles in this experiment is stored on a centralized platform, where currently, none of the subjects have editing access to it. Through the survey interface, subjects can request direct access and supply more detailed metadata along with updated datasets.

We ask subjects to self-report their motivation through a checklist after they have finished editing the metadata fields. More details are documented in the Analysis Plan document.

Subjects will receive a personalized email inviting them to provide metadata for one of their published studies. We introduce one control message and two variants of treatment message. In the baseline template, we describe the task and invite subjects to provide metadata in a customized survey interface. In treatment 1 and treatment 2, we insert one extra paragraph into the baseline template that explains the findability implication of metadata. Treatment 1 and treatment 2 are different in how the new paragraph concludes.

Starting in October 2019, AEA migrated the entire back archive of 3,073 data and
code supplements into the AEA Data and Code Repository hosted at openICPSR.
Currently, the metadata fields for the migrated deposits are sparse, making the
migrated studies hard to find.

Subjects in our experiment are organized through a coauthor-network, where we
allow for multiple edges between individuals if they have coauthored multiple
papers together. In total, there are 3,070 articles and 4,321 unique
authors. The giant component of this network has 2,004 subjects. To mitigate
spillovers through the coauthor-network, we selectively include a portion of the
articles into this experiment, where none of the two picked articles shall
have any author of the articles in common. That is, we choose to include a set
of independent articles.

We have one control condition and two treatment conditions. In the control
condition, we describe the task and invite subjects to provide metadata through
a customized survey interface. In treatment 1 and treatment 2, we insert one
extra paragraph into the email template used in the control condition, which
explains the findability implication of metadata. Treatment 1 and treatment 2
are different in how the new paragraph concludes: in treatment 1, the individual
benefit of future citations is made salient; in treatment 2, potential benefits
to graduate students and other researchers are made salient.

Randomization was done in office by a computer.

Relying on the network of coauthors, we extract a set of independent articles such that none of the articles we include in the experiment shall have any common authors. In practice, we take out "bridging" edges from the original network and generate a reduced network with fewer edges. We randomly pick one article from each component of the network in the reduced network and proceed to the randomization step.

As the articles are chosen from components in the reduced network, we block by the "origin" of the components as well as the year of publication and number of authors for the articles. Within each block, we reshuffle the list and stack the list of articles in the same block on top of another list of articles from another block. Lastly, in the master list where blocks are stacked on top of each other, we divide the index by 3 and assign experimental conditions based on the residual from the division.

We cluster treatment at the article level, where all authors of the same article are assigned to the same experimental condition.

Yes

1,458 articles

3,044 participants

Each treatment arm has 486 clusters (articles).

10 percentage points

Experiment Design and Pre-Analysis Plan