ArticlePloS one2015
What drives academic data sharing?
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
90 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying the most important facilitators of open research data sharing and reuse in Epidemiology: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of researchers' and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- UMUD: a web application for easy access to musculoskeletal ultrasonography datasets.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Unmasking the ethical dimensions of data-sharing in health research: perspectives from researchers at a public university in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Experiences of Health Research Data Sharing Among Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- The Impact of Research Results Feedback on the Lived Experiences of Elderly Participants in the DIMAMO Health Demographic Site: A Case of AWI-Gen Participants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Historical and ongoing inequities shape research visibility in Latin American aquatic mammal paleontology.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Reusability challenges of livestock production data to improve animal health.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Aotearoa genomic data repository: An āhuru mōwai for taonga species sequencing data.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Challenging the status quo: A guide to open and reproducible neuroimaging for early career researchers.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Open Science Practices in Integrated Assessment Models.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- From ownership to custodianship: rethinking human biospecimens data governance in the Chinese context.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Does the use of unusual combinations of datasets contribute to greater scientific impact?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- A pathway to strengthening open science: comments on the draftFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- A study on formalizing the knowledge of data curation activities across different fields.PloS one · 2024Article
- Re-use of research data in the social sciences. Use and users of digital data archive.PloS one · 2024Article
- Caribbean data-sharing initiatives: activities of the Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes Research Network.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Article
30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite widespread support from policy makers, funding agencies, and scientific journals, academic researchers rarely make their research data available to others. At the same time, data sharing in research is attributed a vast potential for scientific progress. It allows the reproducibility of study results and the reuse of old data for new research questions. Based on a systematic review of 98 scholarly papers and an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users, we develop a conceptual framework that explains the process of data sharing from the primary researcher's point of view. We show that this process can be divided into six descriptive categories: Data donor, research organization, research community, norms, data infrastructure, and data recipients. Drawing from our findings, we discuss theoretical implications regarding knowledge creation and dissemination as well as research policy measures to foster academic collaboration. We conclude that research data cannot be regarded as knowledge commons, but research policies that better incentivise data sharing are needed to improve the quality of research results and foster scientific progress.
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.