ArticlePLoS biology2016
Gauging the Purported Costs of Public Data Archiving for Long-Term Population Studies.
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Environmental coupling of heritability and selection is rare and of minor evolutionary significance in wild populations.Nature ecology & evolution · 2018Pooled it
- Brokering peace in the ape (culture) wars.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- From policy to practice: progress towards data- and code-sharing in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The end of long-term ecological data?PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Ensuring Prevention Science Research is Synthesis-Ready for Immediate and Lasting Scientific Impact.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Article
- Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Connecting the data landscape of long-term ecological studies: The SPI-Birds data hub.The Journal of animal ecology · 2021Article
- Low availability of code in ecology: A call for urgent action.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Rescuing Troves of Hidden Ecological Data to Tackle Emerging Mosquito-Borne Diseases.Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association · 2019Article
- Data Citation in Neuroimaging: Proposed Best Practices for Data Identification and Attribution.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It was recently proposed that long-term population studies be exempted from the expectation that authors publicly archive the primary data underlying published articles. Such studies are valuable to many areas of ecological and evolutionary biological research, and multiple risks to their viability were anticipated as a result of public data archiving (PDA), ultimately all stemming from independent reuse of archived data. However, empirical assessment was missing, making it difficult to determine whether such fears are realistic. I addressed this by surveying data packages from long-term population studies archived in the Dryad Digital Repository. I found no evidence that PDA results in reuse of data by independent parties, suggesting the purported costs of PDA for long-term population studies have been overstated.
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.