scholarly journals The intertwining of reputation and sharing – The significance of standardization in preparing research data and the impact of project organization

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 01002
Author(s):  
Saskia-Rabea Schrade
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Research Data ◽  
External Factors ◽  
Data Preparation ◽  
Project Organization ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

Despite efforts to increase scientists’ willingness to share research data political stakeholders and funding agencies, there is still a discrepancy between scientists’ attitude toward data sharing and their actual practice. In a first step, this paper takes a close look at scientists’ definition of research data and the influence of project organization on scientist’ willingness to share data by analyzing interviews with scientists of three different disciplines. As the analysis shows, talking about “data sharing” should always happen in the context of data preparation and its various steps. Additionally, the influence of external factors such as a special form of project organization seems to be limited.

scholarly journals Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leho Tedersoo ◽  
Rainer Küngas ◽  
Ester Oras ◽  
Kajar Köster ◽  
Helen Eenmaa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Bonus Points

AbstractData sharing is one of the cornerstones of modern science that enables large-scale analyses and reproducibility. We evaluated data availability in research articles across nine disciplines in Nature and Science magazines and recorded corresponding authors’ concerns, requests and reasons for declining data sharing. Although data sharing has improved in the last decade and particularly in recent years, data availability and willingness to share data still differ greatly among disciplines. We observed that statements of data availability upon (reasonable) request are inefficient and should not be allowed by journals. To improve data sharing at the time of manuscript acceptance, researchers should be better motivated to release their data with real benefits such as recognition, or bonus points in grant and job applications. We recommend that data management costs should be covered by funding agencies; publicly available research data ought to be included in the evaluation of applications; and surveillance of data sharing should be enforced by both academic publishers and funders. These cross-discipline survey data are available from the plutoF repository.

scholarly journals Sharing health research data – the role of funders in improving the impact

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Terry ◽  
Katherine Littler ◽  
Piero L. Olliaro
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Subsequent Publication ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Registry Entry ◽  
The Impact

Recent public health emergencies with outbreaks of influenza, Ebola and Zika revealed that the mechanisms for sharing research data are neither being used, or adequate for the purpose, particularly where data needs to be shared rapidly. A review of research papers, including completed clinical trials related to priority pathogens, found only 31% (98 out of 319 published papers, excluding case studies) provided access to all the data underlying the paper - 65% of these papers give no information on how to find or access the data. Only two clinical trials out of 58 on interventions for WHO priority pathogens provided any link in their registry entry to the background data. Interviews with researchers revealed a reluctance to share data included a lack of confidence in the utility of the data; an absence of academic-incentives for rapid dissemination that prevents subsequent publication and a disconnect between those who are collecting the data and those who wish to use it quickly.  The role of the funders of research needs to change to address this. Funders need to engage early with the researchers and related stakeholders to understand their concerns and work harder to define the more explicitly the benefits to all stakeholders.  Secondly, there needs to be a direct benefit to sharing data that is directly relevant to those people that collect and curate the data. Thirdly more work needs to be done to realise the intent of making data sharing resources more equitable, ethical and efficient.  Finally, a checklist of the issues that need to be addressed when designing new or revising existing data sharing resources should be created. This checklist would highlight the technical, cultural and ethical issues that need to be considered and point to examples of emerging good practice that can be used to address them.

scholarly journals Sharing health research data – the role of funders in improving the impact

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Terry ◽  
Katherine Littler ◽  
Piero L. Olliaro
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Subsequent Publication ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Registry Entry ◽  
The Impact

Recent public health emergencies with outbreaks of influenza, Ebola and Zika revealed that the mechanisms for sharing research data are neither being used, or adequate for the purpose, particularly where data needs to be shared rapidly. A review of research papers, including completed clinical trials related to priority pathogens, found only 31% (98 out of 319 published papers, excluding case studies) provided access to all the data underlying the paper - 65% of these papers give no information on how to find or access the data. Only two clinical trials out of 58 on interventions for WHO priority pathogens provided any link in their registry entry to the background data. Interviews with researchers revealed a reluctance to share data included a lack of confidence in the utility of the data; an absence of academic-incentives for rapid dissemination that prevents subsequent publication and a disconnect between those who are collecting the data and those who wish to use it quickly.  The role of the funders of research needs to change to address this. Funders need to engage early with the researchers and related stakeholders to understand their concerns and work harder to define the more explicitly the benefits to all stakeholders.  Secondly, there needs to be a direct benefit to sharing data that is directly relevant to those people that collect and curate the data. Thirdly more work needs to be done to realise the intent of making data sharing resources more equitable, ethical and efficient.  Finally, a checklist of the issues that need to be addressed when designing new or revising existing data sharing resources should be created. This checklist would highlight the technical, cultural and ethical issues that need to be considered and point to examples of emerging good practice that can be used to address them.

scholarly journals Perceptions and Attitudes toward Data Sharing among Dental Researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Spallek ◽  
S.M. Weinberg ◽  
M. Manz ◽  
S. Nanayakkara ◽  
X. Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Management ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
International Association ◽  
Improve Patient Care ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Data Repositories ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Past Experiences

Introduction: Increasing attention is being given to the roles of data management and data sharing in the advancement of research. This study was undertaken to explore opinions and past experiences of established dental researchers as related to data sharing and data management. Methods: Researchers were recruited from the International Association for Dental Research scientific groups to complete a survey consisting of Likert-type, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions. Results: All 42 respondents indicated that data sharing should be promoted and facilitated, but many indicated reservations or concerns about the proper use of data and the protection of research subjects. Many had used data from data repositories and received requests for data originating from their studies. Opinions varied regarding restrictions such as requirements to share data and the time limits of investigator rights to keep data. Respondents also varied in their methods of data management and storage, with younger respondents and those with higher direct costs of their research tending to use dedicated experts to manage their data. Discussion: The expressed respondent support for research data sharing, with the noted concerns, complements the idea of developing managed data clearinghouses capable of promoting, managing, and overseeing the data-sharing process. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Researchers can use the results of this study to evaluate and improve management and sharing of research data. By encouraging and facilitating the data-sharing process, research can advance more efficiently, and research findings can be implemented into practice more rapidly to improve patient care and the overall oral health of populations.

scholarly journals A Research data Sharing Game

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tessa E Pronk ◽  
Paulien H Wiersma ◽  
Anne van Weerden
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Theory ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Data Retrieval ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Average Efficiency ◽  
Natural Tendency ◽  
Share Data

While reusing research data has evident benefits for the scientific community as a whole, decisions to archive and share these data are primarily made by individual researchers. For individuals, it is less obvious that the benefits of sharing data outweigh the associated costs, i.e. time and money. In this sense the problem of data sharing resembles a typical game in interactive decision theory, more commonly known as game theory. Within this framework we analyse in this paper how different measures to promote sharing and reuse of research data affect sharing and not sharing individuals. We find that the scientific community can benefit from top-down policies to enhance sharing data even when the act of sharing itself implies a cost. Namely, if (almost) everyone shares, many individuals can gain a higher efficiency as datasets can be reused. Additionally, measures to ensure better data retrieval and quality can compensate for sharing costs by enabling reuse. Nevertheless, an individual researcher who decides not to share omits the costs of sharing. Assuming that the natural tendency will be to use a strategy that will lead to maximisation of individual efficiency it is seen that, as more individuals decide not to share, there is a point at which average efficiency for both sharing and non-sharing researchers becomes lower than was originally the case and scientific community efficiency steadily drops. With this in mind, we conclude that the key to motivate the researcher to share data lies in reducing the costs associated with sharing, or even better, turning it into a benefit.

scholarly journals Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Towse ◽  
David Alexander Ellis ◽  
Andrea Towse
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Impact

Open data-sharing is a valuable practice that ought to enhance the impact, reach and transparency of a research project. While widely advocated by many researchers and mandated by some journals and funding agencies, little is known about detailed practices across psychological science. In a pre-registered study, we show that overall, few research papers directly link to available data in many, though not all, journals. Most importantly, even where open data can be identified, the majority of these lacked completeness and reusability - conclusions that closely mirror those reported outside of Psychology. Exploring the reasons behind these findings, we offer seven specific recommendations for engineering and incentivizing improved practices, so that the potential of open data can be better realized across psychology and social science more generally.

scholarly journals A survey of researchers' needs and priorities for data sharing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz ◽  
James Harney ◽  
Lauren Cadwallader
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Data Reuse ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Data Repositories ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Do So

PLOS has long supported Open Science. One of the ways in which we do so is via our stringent data availability policy established in 2014. Despite this policy, and more data sharing policies being introduced by other organizations, best practices for data sharing are adopted by a minority of researchers in their publications. Problems with effective research data sharing persist and these problems have been quantified by previous research as a lack of time, resources, incentives, and/or skills to share data. In this study we built on this research by investigating the importance of tasks associated with data sharing, and researchers’ satisfaction with their ability to complete these tasks. By investigating these factors we aimed to better understand opportunities for new or improved solutions for sharing data. In May-June 2020 we surveyed researchers from Europe and North America to rate tasks associated with data sharing on (i) their importance and (ii) their satisfaction with their ability to complete them. We received 728 completed and 667 partial responses. We calculated mean importance and satisfaction scores to highlight potential opportunities for new solutions to and compare different cohorts.Tasks relating to research impact, funder compliance, and credit had the highest importance scores. 52% of respondents reuse research data but the average satisfaction score for obtaining data for reuse was relatively low. Tasks associated with sharing data were rated somewhat important and respondents were reasonably well satisfied in their ability to accomplish them. Notably, this included tasks associated with best data sharing practice, such as use of data repositories. However, the most common method for sharing data was in fact via supplemental files with articles, which is not considered to be best practice.We presume that researchers are unlikely to seek new solutions to a problem or task that they are satisfied in their ability to accomplish, even if many do not attempt this task. This implies there are few opportunities for new solutions or tools to meet these researcher needs. Publishers can likely meet these needs for data sharing by working to seamlessly integrate existing solutions that reduce the effort or behaviour change involved in some tasks, and focusing on advocacy and education around the benefits of sharing data. There may however be opportunities - unmet researcher needs - in relation to better supporting data reuse, which could be met in part by strengthening data sharing policies of journals and publishers, and improving the discoverability of data associated with published articles.

scholarly journals Opening Pandora’s Box: Peeking inside Psychology’s data sharing practices, and seven recommendations for change

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John N. Towse ◽  
David A Ellis ◽  
Andrea S Towse
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Open data-sharing is a valuable practice that ought to enhance the impact, reach, and transparency of a research project. While widely advocated by many researchers and mandated by some journals and funding agencies, little is known about detailed practices across psychological science. In a pre-registered study, we show that overall, few research papers directly link to available data in many, though not all, journals. Most importantly, even where open data can be identified, the majority of these lacked completeness and reusability—conclusions that closely mirror those reported outside of Psychology. Exploring the reasons behind these findings, we offer seven specific recommendations for engineering and incentivizing improved practices, so that the potential of open data can be better realized across psychology and social science more generally.

scholarly journals Research Data Sharing in Spain: Exploring Determinants, Practices, and Perceptions

Data ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent ◽  
Antonio Vidal-Infer ◽  
Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo ◽  
Fernanda Peset ◽  
Antonia Ferrer Sapena
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Research Group ◽  
Storage Systems ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Management Plan ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Sustainable Development Goal ◽  
Development Goal ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Share Data

This work provides an overview of a Spanish survey on research data, which was carried out within the framework of the project Datasea at the beginning of 2015. It is covered by the objectives of sustainable development (goal 9) to support the research. The purpose of the study was to identify the habits and current experiences of Spanish researchers in the health sciences in relation to the management and sharing of raw research data. Method: An electronic questionnaire composed of 40 questions divided into three blocks was designed. The three Section s contained questions on the following aspects: (A) personal information; (B) creation and reuse of data; and (C) preservation of data. The questionnaire was sent by email to a list of universities in Spain to be distributed among their researchers and professors. A total of 1063 researchers completed the questionnaire. More than half of the respondents (54.9%) lacked a data management plan; nearly a quarter had storage systems for the research group; 81.5% used personal computers to store data; “Contact with colleagues” was the most frequent means used to locate and access other researchers’ data; and nearly 60% of researchers stated their data were available to the research group and collaborating colleagues. The main fears about sharing were legal questions (47.9%), misuse or interpretation of data (42.7%), and loss of authorship (28.7%). The results allow us to understand the state of data sharing among Spanish researchers and can serve as a basis to identify the needs of researchers to share data, optimize existing infrastructure, and promote data sharing among those who do not practice it yet.

Beyond article publishing - support and opportunities for researchers in FAIR data sharing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Smith ◽  
Andrew Hufton
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Environmental Sciences ◽  
Data Repositories ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Data Citation ◽  
The Impact

<p>Researchers are increasingly expected by funders and journals to make their data available for reuse as a condition of publication. At Springer Nature, we feel that publishers must support researchers in meeting these additional requirements, and must recognise the distinct opportunities data holds as a research output. Here, we outline some of the varied ways that Springer Nature supports research data sharing and report on key outcomes.</p><p>Our staff and journals are closely involved with community-led efforts, like the Enabling FAIR Data initiative and the COPDESS 2014 Statement of Commitment <sup>1-4</sup>. The Enabling FAIR Data initiative, which was endorsed in January 2019 by <em>Nature</em> and <em>Scientific Data</em>, and by <em>Nature Geoscience</em> in January 2020, establishes a clear expectation that Earth and environmental sciences data should be deposited in FAIR<sup>5</sup> Data-aligned community repositories, when available (and in general purpose repositories otherwise). In support of this endorsement, <em>Nature</em> and <em>Nature Geoscience</em> require authors to share and deposit their Earth and environmental science data, and <em>Scientific Data</em> has committed to progressively updating its list of recommended data repositories to help authors comply with this mandate.</p><p>In addition, we offer a range of research data services, with various levels of support available to researchers in terms of data curation, expert guidance on repositories and linking research data and publications.</p><p>We appreciate that researchers face potentially challenging requirements in terms of the ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ of sharing research data. This can be particularly difficult for researchers to negotiate given that huge diversity of policies across different journals. We have therefore developed a series of standardised data policies, which have now been adopted by more than 1,600 Springer Nature journals. </p><p>We believe that these initiatives make important strides in challenging the current replication crisis and addressing the economic<sup>6</sup> and societal consequences of data unavailability. They also offer an opportunity to drive change in how academic credit is measured, through the recognition of a wider range of research outputs than articles and their citations alone. As signatories of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment<sup>7</sup>, Nature Research is committed to improving the methods of evaluating scholarly research. Research data in this context offers new mechanisms to measure the impact of all research outputs. To this end, Springer Nature supports the publication of peer-reviewed data papers through journals like <em>Scientific Data</em>. Analysis of citation patterns demonstrate that data papers can be well-cited, and offer a viable way for researchers to receive credit for data sharing through traditional citation metrics. Springer Nature is also working hard to improve support for direct data citation. In 2018 a data citation roadmap developed by the Publishers Early Adopters Expert Group was published in <em>Scientific Data</em><sup>8</sup>, outlining practical steps for publishers to work with data citations and associated benefits in transparency and credit for researchers. Using examples from this roadmap, its implementation and supporting services, we outline how a FAIR-led data approach from publishers can help researchers in the Earth and environmental sciences to capitalise on new expectations around data sharing.</p><p>__</p><ol><li>https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00075-3</li> <li>https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0506-4</li> <li>https://copdess.org/enabling-fair-data-project/commitment-statement-in-the-earth-space-and-environmental-sciences/</li> <li>https://copdess.org/statement-of-commitment/</li> <li>https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples</li> <li>https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d375368c-1a0a-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1</li> <li>https://sfdora.org/read/</li> <li>https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.259</li> </ol>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document