ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2016
The Changing Nature of Scientific Sharing and Withholding in Academic Life Sciences Research: Trends From National Surveys in 2000 and 2013.
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective analysis and decentralized distribution to improve the lifecycle of Ah receptor research assets.Biochemical pharmacology · 2025Article
- The C-BIG Repository: an Institution-Level Open Science Platform.Neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Empowering Data Sharing and Analytics through the Open Data Commons for Traumatic Brain Injury Research.Neurotrauma reports · 2022Article
- Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Developing a data sharing community for spinal cord injury research.Experimental neurology · 2017Review
- Technology Transfer: From the Research Bench to Commercialization: Part 2: The Commercialization Process.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2017Article
- Make Data Sharing Routine to Prepare for Public Health Emergencies.PLoS medicine · 2016Article
- Codifying collegiality: recent developments in data sharing policy in the life sciences.PloS one · 2014Article
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
Abstract
purposeSince 2000, federal funders and many journals have established policies requiring more open sharing of data and materials post-publication, primarily through online supplements and third-party repositories. This study examined changes in sharing and withholding practices among academic life scientists, particularly geneticists, between 2000 and 2013.
methodIn 2000 and 2013, the authors surveyed separate samples of 3,000 academic life scientists at the 100 U.S. universities receiving the most National Institutes of Health funding. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of requests for information, data, and materials they made to and received from other academic researchers in the past three years. They were also asked about potential consequences of sharing and withholding.
resultsResponse rates were 63.9% (1,849/2,893) in 2000 and 40.8% (1,165/2,853) in 2013. Proportions of faculty in 2000 and 2013 who received, denied, made, or were denied at least one request were not statistically different. However, the total volume of requests received from or made to other scientists dropped substantially (19.4 received in 2000 versus 10.8 in 2013, P < .001; 8.4 made in 2000 versus 6.6 in 2013, P < .001). Faculty in 2013 also made an average of 8.4 requests to third-party repositories. Researchers in 2013 were less likely to report sharing resulted in new research or collaborations.
conclusionsThe results show a dramatic shift in sharing mechanisms, away from a peer-to-peer sharing model toward one based on central repositories. This may increase efficiency, but collaborations may suffer if personal communication among scientists is deemphasized.
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.