Abstract
Web-accessible biodiversity databases accept and openly share species observations from the public, which benefits research, conservation, and education. However, public data sharing can also bring harm, for example by facilitating poaching. Databases may mitigate potential harms associated with data sharing by designating certain species as “sensitive” and restricting access to those species data. Herein, we explore how databases explain those restrictions through rationales. We analyzed rationale communication in 43 biodiversity databases that automatically restrict access to certain participatory science species data. We found a small set of commonly used rationales, wide variation in the number of rationales provided, and a surprising number of databases citing few rationales. We distinguish between general theme rationales that can apply to many species and specific theme rationales that apply to fewer species, and between low- and high-context rationales. Most databases provided general theme rationales at the database level, and a smaller group provided rationales (general or specific theme) unique to each species. Most databases explained restrictions in formal policies, but some did not. We discuss implications of rationale communication for data accessibility, risk management, and informed participation in participatory science, and link our findings to ongoing metadata standardization efforts. We suggest seven best practices for data restriction communication that account for differences in project values, obligations, and resources. Our primary recommendations are that databases provide rationales for data restrictions, ideally unique to each species, and make these rationales publicly accessible and easy to locate when doing so does not increase threats.