Rebuttal to “[Letter to the Editor. Re: Indigenous knowledge dataset of Dayak, Malay and Chinese communities in Sintang Regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia by Gandasari et al., Data in Brief, 2024, 53, 110147]”

Reference of original article

Original article: (1) Gandasari, Adriana, Markus Iyus Supiandi, Thomas Joni Verawanto Aristo, et al. “Indigenous Knowledge Dataset of Dayak, Malay and Chinese Communities in Sintang Regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia.” Data in Brief 53 (April 2024): 110,147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110147.

Letter to the Editor: (2) Yulianto, Jony Eko, and Pita King. “Letter to the Editor. Re: ‘[Indigenous Dataset of Dayak, Malay, and Chinese Communities in Sintang Regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia by A. Gandasari et al., Data in Brief, 2024, 53, 110,147].’” Data in Brief 54 (June 2024): 110,422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110422.

1. Overview

The contemporary discourse surrounding open data and Indigenous knowledge systems underscores the complex ethical and epistemological considerations involved in translating localized knowledge into broader research frameworks. Recent developments in open science have promoted data democratization, yet scholars have also noted potential unintended consequences for Indigenous communities [1]. While open data offers important opportunities for transparency and collaboration, concerns remain regarding the commodification and decontextualization of Indigenous knowledge. Relational and cultural contexts profoundly shape Indigenous data, and their dissemination therefore requires careful attention to epistemic integrity and community authority [2,3]. These discussions highlight the importance of ongoing reflection on data ethics in ways that recognize Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

In response to the comments from Yulianto and King [4], to explain and elaborate on the ethical and methodological foundations of the study by Gandasari et al. [5]. We acknowledge that the original article we presented primarily focused on describing the dataset and its structure, so the emphasis on the ethical and methodological foundations that were implemented through several culturally based protective measures underlying the research process was not explained in depth. Of course, this response provides additional context regarding those protective measures, including participatory involvement, consent procedures, and considerations related to community governance.

Gandasari et al. [5] documented Indigenous knowledge from Dayak, Malay, and Chinese communities in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, using participatory and context-sensitive approaches. The study emphasized community participation, informed consent, and cultural specificity, aligning with broader scholarship advocating Indigenous-centered and relational research methodologies [6,7]. Within this framework, open data is understood not as unrestricted dissemination, but as a practice that must remain attentive to relational ethics and community-defined boundaries.

The concerns raised in the commentary resonate with broader scholarly debates about how open-source publication models may affect locally grounded knowledge systems. Similar tensions have been discussed by Wick et al. [1], who highlight the need for open-data norms to remain responsive to localized consent and sovereignty principles. Ethical data governance frameworks such as CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) [8] and OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) [9] offer important guidance in navigating these issues [10]. Gandasari et al. [5] implemented safeguards in their research that align with these principles, although the initial publication did not fully articulate all procedural details.

The literature further emphasizes that sustainable and equitable data governance requires locally grounded decision-making rather than purely universal prescriptions. Anderson et al. [11] and Drake et al. [12] propose adaptive, context-based models of ethical collaboration that accommodate the diversity of Indigenous epistemologies. Gandasari et al.'s [5] contribution offers empirical insights from Indonesia that contribute to this broader conversation, underscoring the importance of dialogical engagement and community involvement in decisions about knowledge documentation and dissemination.

By offering these clarifications, this letter seeks to contribute to a constructive scholarly dialogue on how open data initiatives can responsibly engage with Indigenous knowledge systems. Continued discussion and transparency are essential for strengthening ethical practice and fostering collaborative approaches to Indigenous data stewardship.

2. Details

2.1. The need to avoid commodification of Indigenous knowledge as ‘Data’

The commentary raises an important ethical concern regarding the potential commodification of Indigenous knowledge when researchers represent it as decontextualized ``data.'' This concern reflects broader scholarly discussions emphasizing that Indigenous knowledge remains inseparable from its relational and cultural foundations. In Gandasari et al. [5], the dataset comprises contributions from 161 informants across Dayak, Malay, and Chinese communities, organized into 12 thematic sections and 105 variables representing diverse domains of knowledge. Such heterogeneity suggests that different categories of information require differentiated ethical consideration rather than a single uniform approach.

As Gupta et al. [2] and Krakouer et al. [13] argue, Indigenous data governance benefits from sensitivity-based classification, recognizing that not all knowledge carries the same cultural or ethical implications. In this context, a tiered-access system ranging from public to restricted and confidential can serve as a mechanism for balancing protection with responsible knowledge sharing. While these governance distinctions were not extensively elaborated in the original article [5], they informed the broader research design and ethical reflection underpinning the study.

Furthermore, open data frameworks, when guided by relational governance principles, may strengthen rather than undermine Indigenous communities. The CARE principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) [8] and OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) [9] emphasize collective authority and community-centered stewardship [10]. Mechanisms such as detailed metadata, cultural labeling, and traceable documentation can support transparency while maintaining Indigenous guardianship. Within this perspective, Gandasari et al. [5] position their approach as an effort to navigate openness within ethical boundaries, seeking to avoid commodification while enabling responsible scholarly engagement.

2.2. Problems of ethical data use and consent

The commentary raises important questions regarding the clarity and scope of informed consent in the context of open data publication. Such concerns underscore the necessity of transparent documentation and ongoing ethical reflection. In Gandasari et al. [5], informed consent procedures were implemented as part of the research process; however, the original article did not elaborate in detail on the specific structure of the consent forms or the range of options available to participants. Providing additional clarification on these procedures is therefore valuable for strengthening transparency.

If consent instruments include provisions for open publication, restriction, or withdrawal, ethical responsibility extends beyond initial approval to how data are subsequently accessed and interpreted. Wick et al. [1] and Calac and Mackey [14] emphasize that Indigenous data ethics benefit from models of continuous community oversight rather than relying solely on one-time consent. In this regard, a dynamic consent framework that allows communities to renew, revise, or withdraw permissions over time offers a constructive pathway for maintaining ethical alignment.

Ethical reflection also involves attentiveness to the researcher's positionality and relational accountability. Gandasari et al. [5] highlight community collaboration and cultural respect as guiding principles of the study, consistent with the scholarship of Smith [15] and Walter and Suina [16]. These commitments reflect efforts to operationalize the CARE [8] and OCAP [9] principles. While the initial dataset publication did not fully detail all procedural dimensions, the authors intentionally designed the research to uphold community autonomy and culturally grounded decision-making.

2.3. Acknowledging the privilege to share Indigenous knowledge

The privilege of documenting and disseminating Indigenous knowledge requires careful reflection on the researcher's authority and epistemic responsibility. Gandasari et al. [5] addressed this consideration through dialogical interviews structured around 105 prompts, designed to promote inclusivity, transparency, and mutual understanding in the knowledge-sharing process. Comparable concerns are reflected in Māori research traditions, which emphasize relational accountability and Indigenous leadership in defining ethical boundaries [15,17]. The dataset's inclusion of local languages, cultural categories, and community-specific terminology reflects an effort to situate Indigenous epistemologies within the data's structure.

These methodological choices indicate an intention to approach open data as a relational and collaborative process rather than a purely technical exercise. While the original article publication [5] did not provide extensive detail on every procedural safeguard, the authors grounded the research design in principles of cultural respect and community engagement.

The broader literature further highlights practical mechanisms for balancing accessibility and community authority. Controlled open-data systems incorporating cultural licensing, TK (Traditional Knowledge) Labels, and local context identifiers have been proposed as constructive approaches for respecting Indigenous governance while enabling scholarly access [2]. Such models demonstrate how stakeholders can structure open data initiatives to support both ethical responsibility and knowledge circulation. Gandasari et al.'s [5] approach contributes to this evolving discussion by aligning accessibility with considerations of sovereignty and cultural integrity.

2.4. Discussing the Indigenous ethics point of view

The commentary raises important reflections on whether universal ethical standards, such as those articulated by WHO [18], sufficiently capture Indigenous value systems. In Gandasari et al. [5], internationally recognized ethical guidelines, including CIOMS [19] and WHO [18] principles, were applied alongside relational and community-engaged research practices. While the original article publication [5] did not elaborate extensively on how these ethical dimensions intersected in practice, the research design sought to situate formal ethical compliance within a culturally responsive framework.

Scholars such as Anderson et al. [11] and Islam et al. [3] suggest that researchers and institutions can strengthen Indigenous-led ethical approaches by thoughtfully integrating them with broader international standards, rather than positioning them in opposition. This integrative perspective offers a constructive pathway for navigating global publication requirements while remaining attentive to local cultural contexts.

A relational ethics perspective further emphasizes cocreation of meaning, shared interpretive responsibility, and reciprocal engagement. Gandasari et al. [5] designed their methodology to incorporate elements of co-development, collective benefit, and reflexivity, consistent with discussions by Belarde-Lewis et al. [10], who highlight reciprocity and respect as foundational to sustainable data governance. Through this approach, the authors sought to balance formal ethical oversight with community-centered principles of accountability.

2.5. Toward operational solutions and broader implications

The ongoing discussion surrounding Indigenous data governance invites consideration of practical mechanisms that support ethical stewardship. Empirical literature identifies several constructive approaches, including tiered data classification [13], community-based licensing models [2], and participatory audit systems [10], as pathways for balancing protection and accessibility. These proposals reflect broader efforts to translate ethical principles into operational practice.

Within this context, Gandasari et al. [5] contribute to the conversation by outlining dialogical and participatory research processes intended to maintain cultural embeddedness and ethical accountability. Although the original article publication focused primarily on dataset documentation, the research design was informed by an intention to align data dissemination with community engaged governance considerations. Future research may further strengthen this field by empirically assessing the potential risks and benefits of open data initiatives, thereby providing evidence based evaluation of concerns related to exploitation, empowerment, and knowledge sustainability

Ultimately, the ethical management of Indigenous data requires ongoing negotiation between openness, responsibility, and community authority. Gandasari et al.'s [5] work contributes to this evolving dialogue by exploring how open-data publication can be structured to support cultural continuity while enabling responsible scholarly exchange.

3. Concluding Remarks

Gandasari et al. [5] document Indigenous knowledge from Dayak, Malay, and Chinese communities in West Kalimantan within an open data publication framework informed by relational ethics and considerations of Indigenous sovereignty. While the original article primarily focused on describing the dataset and its structure, the authors grounded the research process in participatory engagement, culturally grounded consent, and reflexive methodological awareness. In this response, the authors clarify these dimensions more explicitly.

The ethical questions raised in the commentary provide a valuable opportunity to articulate further how open-data initiatives can remain attentive to community authority and cultural integrity. Frameworks such as CARE [8], OCAP [9], and internationally recognized ethical standards, including those of the WHO [18], offer complementary guidance for navigating these complexities. By interpreting open data through a relational lens, researchers can structure data governance to balance accessibility with responsibility.

By contributing empirical experience from a Southeast Asian context, Gandasari et al. [5] participate in the broader global dialogue on Indigenous data governance. Continued reflection, transparency, and collaborative scholarship will be essential for refining operational safeguards and evaluating the long-term implications of open-data publication for Indigenous communities. Such ongoing engagement can strengthen mutual understanding and support ethically grounded knowledge exchange.

Ethics Statements

The research team designed and implemented this study in accordance with the CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) and OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) principles, which guided their approach to culturally grounded consent, community participation, and Indigenous data governance. While the original article publication summarized the ethical approval process, it did not elaborate in detail on the participatory procedures and governance considerations underlying the study.

All participants provided informed consent prior to data collection, including consent for documentation and publication of knowledge within agreed parameters. The research design incorporated dialogical engagement, recognition of community defined knowledge boundaries, and attention to collective benefit. The research team aligned ethical oversight with internationally recognized standards, including WHO and CIOMS guidelines, thereby situating community-centered practices within formal research ethics frameworks. The study sought to balance open-data dissemination with relational accountability, ensuring that data sharing remained attentive to Indigenous sovereignty and culturally specific contexts.

CRediT Author Statement

Adriana Gandasari: Conceptualization, Preparation of original draft; Markus Iyus Supiandi: Writing- Reviewing and Editing; Thomas Joni Verawanto Aristo: Translator and Editing; Ursula Dwi Oktaviani: Data Curation; Dinn Wahyudin: Supervision; Asep Herry Hernawan: Supervision.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research and Community Service Information Base-Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (BIMA-Kemendikbudristek) of the Republic of Indonesia, through Domestic Collaborative Research (PKDN) Scheme, Fiscal Year 2023 (Grant Contract No 187/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2023).