ArticlePloS one2015
Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 115 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data needs for accelerating research at the intersection of climate stressors and health: an online survey.Environmental research, health : ERH · 2026Article
- Blockchain Technology for Big-data Sharing in Material Genome Engineering.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Experiences of Health Research Data Sharing Among Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Unleashing the power of AI in science-key considerations for materials data preparation.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Data science and its future in large neuroscience collaborations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Review
- Understanding the value of curation: A survey of researcher perspectives of data curation services from six US institutions.PloS one · 2023Article
- The Environmental Data Initiative: Connecting the past to the future through data reuse.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- From Reductionism to Reintegration: Solving society's most pressing problems requires building bridges between data types across the life sciences.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Encoding Collective Knowledge, Instructing Data Reusers: The Collaborative Fixation of a Digital Scientific Data Set.Computer supported cooperative work : CSCW : an international journal · 2021Article
- Towards computational reproducibility: researcher perspectives on the use and sharing of software.PeerJ. Computer science · 2018Article
- Health Research Funding Agencies' Policies, Recommendations, and Tools for Dissemination.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2018Article
- FAIRness and Usability for Open-access Omics Data Systems.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Article
- Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations.Research integrity and peer review · 2016Article
- Factors associated with citation rate of randomised controlled trials in physiotherapy.Archives of physiotherapy · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
- Comment: Making data count.Scientific data · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data "publication" seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences- asking what expectations"data publication" raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data's documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published 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.