ArticlePLoS biology2014
Troubleshooting public data archiving: suggestions to increase participation.
Article in PLoS biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed.
- A FAIR road to a bioAFM databank.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Researchers' perceptions of the trustworthiness, for reuse purposes, of government health data in Victoria, Australia: Implications for policy and practice.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2025Article
- Poor hypotheses and research waste in biology: learning from a theory crisis in psychology.BMC biology · 2025Review
- How will we prepare for an uncertain future? The value of open data and code for unborn generations facing climate change.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Incentivising open ecological data using blockchain technology.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Importance of timely metadata curation to the global surveillance of genetic diversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023Article
- Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences.Environmental evidence · 2023Article
- Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- A minimum data standard for vector competence experiments.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Data rescue: saving environmental data from extinction.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Promoting FAIR Data Through Community-driven Agile Design: the Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury (odc-sci.org).Neuroinformatics · 2022Review
- Connecting the data landscape of long-term ecological studies: The SPI-Birds data hub.The Journal of animal ecology · 2021Article
- Toward an Integrated Genome-Based Surveillance ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- An investigation of irreproducibility in maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Article
- MIReAD, a minimum information standard for reporting arthropod abundance data.Scientific data · 2019Article
- Rescuing Troves of Hidden Ecological Data to Tackle Emerging Mosquito-Borne Diseases.Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of publishers and funding agencies require public data archiving (PDA) in open-access databases. PDA has obvious group benefits for the scientific community, but many researchers are reluctant to share their data publicly because of real or perceived individual costs. Improving participation in PDA will require lowering costs and/or increasing benefits for primary data collectors. Small, simple changes can enhance existing measures to ensure that more scientific data are properly archived and made publicly available: (1) facilitate more flexible embargoes on archived data, (2) encourage communication between data generators and re-users, (3) disclose data re-use ethics, and (4) encourage increased recognition of publicly archived data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.