10.18710/6MLFBE Kvale, Live Håndlykken Live Håndlykken Kvale https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5264-0382 University of Oslo Specht, Alison Alison Specht https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2623-0854 Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, the University of Queensland Bezuidenhout, Louise Louise Bezuidenhout https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4328-3963 Leiden University Erkan, Berna Burcak Basbug Berna Burcak Basbug Erkan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2343-400X Middle East Technical University Mukasa, Norman Norman Mukasa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5197-0136 Murray, Virginia Virginia Murray https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3667-2552 University College London Nidhi Nagabhatia Nidhi Nagabhatia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5941-2048 UNU CRIS Belgium Ødegaard, Ingvill Constanze Ingvill Constanze Ødegaard https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5481-3432 DataverseNO 2026 Social Sciences Research data management Vulnerable groups Data sharing Research ethics Data ethics Bibliography Open Science Data policy University of Oslo University of Oslo Kvale, Live Håndlykken Live Håndlykken Kvale University of Oslo 2026-08-04 2026-08-06 2025-05-01/2026-05-30 Bibliography from a structured literature review; Illustrations 10.18710/6MLFBE/NKESWI 10.18710/6MLFBE/KAXDZB 10.18710/6MLFBE/IN2JQ9 10.18710/6MLFBE/PCTCMT 10.18710/6MLFBE/V7ZADA 10.18710/6MLFBE/UIEHPZ 10.18710/6MLFBE/QTZUE0 10.18710/6MLFBE/I9UKDH 247439 167150 111389 616 27725 14322 14872 6398 image/png image/png image/png text/plain text/plain text/plain text/plain text/plain 1.0 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. We conducted a structured review of the literature followed by thematic analysis. Research on research data sharing is published across multiple research domains, making complete overview of existing scholarship difficult to achieve. This prevented us from doing a formal systematic review but rather an overview of different approaches to ethical data sharing from a range of communities. We emphasised transparency in search strategy, selection, and thematic interpretation to generate a rigorous narrative synthesis. We used the Web of Science (WoS) database to search for relevant literature on research data ethics across research domains. This search provided an overview of the current landscape and we supplemented it with literature from reference lists and by knowledge of the authors. Three searches were conducted in May 2025 and updated in May 2026 resulting in 715 results in 2025, and an additional 54 in 2026. We then browsed abstracts and titles excluding non-relevant hits, resulting in 65 papers from the original search, and additionally 15 from 2025 and 2026. Additionally we added 21 articles based on references to relevant papers and relevant articles known to the authors, resulting in 101 articles. A second screening which included a more detailed reading of the papers limited this to 53 documents on ethical aspects of data sharing from human subjects. Excluded documents were either not relevant to our research question or did not report on findings from empirical research. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis of the selected literature to identify how concepts including privacy, motivations, emotions, ownership and vulnerability were addressed. And further identify existing guidance on governance, principles, and guidelines, and where they fall short in addressing relational and human factors such as motivation, ownership, vulnerability, and emotions. This datasett contains the bibliographies of the 101 and the 53 documents, and the codes and frequency in the material. In addition illustrations used in the paper are uploaded as .png files