Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26308551›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Changes in Data Sharing and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions among Scientists Worldwide.

Carol Tenopir, Elizabeth D Dalton, Suzie Allard, Mike Frame, Ivanka Pjesivac, Ben Birch, Danielle Pollock, Kristina Dorsett

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 108 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
88.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

108 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 452 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. The tragedy of the biodiversity data commons: a data impediment creeping nigher?Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Carol TenopirSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Elizabeth D DaltonCenter for Information & Communication Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Suzie AllardSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Mike FrameUS Geological Survey, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States of America.
Ivanka PjesivacGrady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America.
Ben BirchSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Danielle PollockSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Kristina DorsettSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
University of Tennessee at Knoxville · USUnited States Geological Survey · USUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incorporation of data sharing into the research lifecycle is an important part of modern scholarly debate. In this study, the DataONE Usability and Assessment working group addresses two primary goals: To examine the current state of data sharing and reuse perceptions and practices among research scientists as they compare to the 2009/2010 baseline study, and to examine differences in practices and perceptions across age groups, geographic regions, and subject disciplines. We distributed surveys to a multinational sample of scientific researchers at two different time periods (October 2009 to July 2010 and October 2013 to March 2014) to observe current states of data sharing and to see what, if any, changes have occurred in the past 3-4 years. We also looked at differences across age, geographic, and discipline-based groups as they currently exist in the 2013/2014 survey. Results point to increased acceptance of and willingness to engage in data sharing, as well as an increase in actual data sharing behaviors. However, there is also increased perceived risk associated with data sharing, and specific barriers to data sharing persist. There are also differences across age groups, with younger respondents feeling more favorably toward data sharing and reuse, yet making less of their data available than older respondents. Geographic differences exist as well, which can in part be understood in terms of collectivist and individualist cultural differences. An examination of subject disciplines shows that the constraints and enablers of data sharing and reuse manifest differently across disciplines. Implications of these findings include the continued need to build infrastructure that promotes data sharing while recognizing the needs of different research communities. Moving into the future, organizations such as DataONE will continue to assess, monitor, educate, and provide the infrastructure necessary to support such complex grand science challenges.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationInternationalityResearchPerceptionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26308551
PMCPMC4550246
OpenAlexW2133559194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.