Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28542450›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Research data management in academic institutions: A scoping review.

Laure Perrier, Erik Blondal, A Patricia Ayala, Dylanne Dearborn, Tim Kenny, David Lightfoot, Roger Reka, Mindy Thuna, Leanne Trimble, Heather MacDonald

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
13.1field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Data Mining, Quality and Management in the Life Sciences.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Health sciences librarians' engagement in open science: a scoping review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Laure PerrierGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9941-7129
Erik BlondalInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A Patricia AyalaGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dylanne DearbornGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tim KennyGibson D. Lewis Health Science Library, UNT Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America.
David LightfootSt. Michael's Hospital Library, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Roger RekaFaculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mindy ThunaEngineering & Computer Science Library, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Leanne TrimbleMap and Data Library, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Heather MacDonaldMacOdrum Library, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CACarleton University · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of North Texas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to describe the volume, topics, and methodological nature of the existing research literature on research data management in academic institutions. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching forty literature databases encompassing a broad range of disciplines from inception to April 2016. We included all study types and data extracted on study design, discipline, data collection tools, and phase of the research data lifecycle.

resultsWe included 301 articles plus 10 companion reports after screening 13,002 titles and abstracts and 654 full-text articles. Most articles (85%) were published from 2010 onwards and conducted within the sciences (86%). More than three-quarters of the articles (78%) reported methods that included interviews, cross-sectional, or case studies. Most articles (68%) included the Giving Access to Data phase of the UK Data Archive Research Data Lifecycle that examines activities such as sharing data. When studies were grouped into five dominant groupings (Stakeholder, Data, Library, Tool/Device, and Publication), data quality emerged as an integral element.

conclusionMost studies relied on self-reports (interviews, surveys) or accounts from an observer (case studies) and we found few studies that collected empirical evidence on activities amongst data producers, particularly those examining the impact of research data management interventions. As well, fewer studies examined research data management at the early phases of research projects. The quality of all research outputs needs attention, from the application of best practices in research data management studies, to data producers depositing data in repositories for long-term use.

Indexed as

Information ManagementInformation ServicesInformation Storage and RetrievalResearchUniversitiesData CollectionData CurationInformation Dissemination

Identifiers

PMID28542450
PMCPMC5441653
OpenAlexW2617597628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.