ArticleScience and engineering ethics2010
The essential nature of sharing in science.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten simple rules for effective research data management.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Making genomic data FAIR through effective Data Portals.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Implementation of an open chemistry knowledge base with a Semantic Wiki.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- Retrospective analysis and decentralized distribution to improve the lifecycle of Ah receptor research assets.Biochemical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Scientific Intelligence: Recognising It to Nurture It.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Translation directionality and the Inhibitory Control Model: a machine learning approach to an eye-tracking study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Linking the Child Behavior Checklist to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.Psychological assessment · 2022Article
- Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies.Accountability in research · 2019Article
- Improving Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Knowledge and Skills to Develop Health Research Capacity in Kenya.Online journal of public health informatics · 2019Article
- Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century.Frontiers in big data · 2019Article
- Article
- The Sharing Experimental Animal Resources, Coordinating Holdings (SEARCH) Framework: Encouraging Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement in Animal Research.PLoS biology · 2017Article
- The Changing Nature of Scientific Sharing and Withholding in Academic Life Sciences Research: Trends From National Surveys in 2000 and 2013.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2016Article
- Article
- The impact of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2: What role do public-private partnerships have in pushing the boundaries of clinical and basic science research on Alzheimer's disease?Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2015Review
- When data sharing gets close to 100%: what human paleogenetics can teach the open science movement.PloS one · 2015Article
- Underutilization of specimens in biobanks: an ethical as well as a practical concern?Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in science are the combined result of the efforts of a great many scientists, and in many cases, their willingness to share the products of their research. These products include data sets, both small and large, and unique research resources not commercially available, such as cell lines and software programs. The sharing of these resources enhances both the scope and the depth of research, while making more efficient use of time and money. However, sharing is not without costs, many of which are borne by the individual who develops the research resource. Sharing, for example, reduces the uniqueness of the resources available to a scientist, potentially influencing the originator's perceived productivity and ultimately his or her competitiveness for jobs, promotions, and grants. Nevertheless, for most researchers-particularly those using public funds-sharing is no longer optional but must be considered an obligation to science, the funding agency, and ultimately society at large. Most funding agencies, journals, and professional societies now require a researcher who has published work involving a unique resource to make that resource available to other investigators. Changes could be implemented to mitigate some of the costs. The creator of the resource could explore the possibility of collaborating with those who request it. In addition, institutions that employ and fund researchers could change their policies and practices to make sharing a more attractive and viable option. For example, when evaluating an individual's productivity, institutions could provide credit for the impact a researcher has had on their field through the provision of their unique resources to other investigators, regardless of whether that impact is reflected in the researcher's list of publications. In addition, increased funding for the development and maintenance of user-friendly public repositories for data and research resources would also help to reduce barriers to sharing by minimizing the time, effort, and funding needed by individual investigators to comply with requests for their unique resource. Indeed, sharing is an imperative, but it is also essential to find ways to protect for both the original owner of the resource and those wishing to share it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21108019What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.