Associated data underlying the article "Comparing open data benchmarks: which metrics and methodologies determine countries’ positions in the ranking lists?"

An understanding of the similar and divergent metrics and methodologies underlying open government data benchmarks can reduce the risks of the potential misinterpretation and misuse of benchmarking outcomes by policymakers, politicians, and researchers. Hence, this study aims <i>to compare the metrics and methodologies used to measure, benchmark, and rank governments' progress in open government data initiatives. </i>Using a critical meta-analysis approach, we compare nine benchmarks with reference to meta-data, meta-methods, and meta-theories. This study finds that both existing open government data benchmarks and academic open data progress models use a great variety of metrics and methodologies, although open data impact is not usually measured. While several benchmarks’ methods have changed over time, and variables measured have been adjusted, we did not identify a similar pattern for academic open data progress models. This study contributes to open data research in three ways: 1) it reveals the strengths and weaknesses of existing open government data benchmarks and academic open data progress models; 2) it reveals that the selected open data benchmarks employ relatively similar measures as the theoretical open data progress models; and 3) it provides an updated overview of the different approaches used to measure open government data initiatives’ progress. Finally, this study offers two practical contributions: 1) it provides the basis for combining the strengths of benchmarks to create more comprehensive approaches for measuring governments’ progress in open data initiatives; and 2) it explains why particular countries are ranked in a certain way. This information is essential for governments and researchers to identify and propose effective measures to improve their open data initiatives.

准确把握开放政府数据基准（open government data benchmarks）背后的共性与差异指标及方法论，能够降低政策制定者、政界人士与研究者对基准评估结果产生误解与误用的潜在风险。因此，本研究旨在对比用于衡量、评估并排序各国开放政府数据倡议进展情况的各类指标与方法论。本研究采用批判性元分析（critical meta-analysis）方法，围绕元数据（meta-data）、元方法论（meta-methods）与元理论（meta-theories）三个维度，对9项基准展开对比分析。研究发现，尽管现有开放政府数据基准与学术性开放数据进展模型均广泛采用多样化的指标与方法论，但二者通常均未对开放数据的影响进行量化评估。尽管部分基准的方法论随时间推移发生了迭代调整，所测变量也有所更新，但学术性开放数据进展模型并未呈现出类似的演化规律。本研究从三方面推动开放数据研究发展：其一，揭示现有开放政府数据基准与学术性开放数据进展模型的优势与不足；其二，证实所选开放数据基准与理论层面的开放数据进展模型所采用的评估维度相对一致；其三，系统梳理并更新了当前用于衡量开放政府数据倡议进展的各类方法。此外，本研究还带来两项实践层面的贡献：其一，为整合各类基准的优势以构建更全面的开放政府数据倡议进展评估框架提供了理论依据；其二，阐释了特定国家在评估中获得对应排名的内在原因。上述信息可为各国政府与研究者识别并提出优化本国开放数据倡议的有效举措提供重要支撑。