ArticlePloS one2017
Attitudes and norms affecting scientists' data reuse.
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 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Incentivising research data sharing: a scoping review.Wellcome open research · 2021Pooled 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
- The Role of Data Papers in Scientific Data Dissemination and Reuse.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Article
- Researchers' perceptions of the trustworthiness, for reuse purposes, of government health data in Victoria, Australia: Implications for policy and practice.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2025Article
- Article
- Unfolding the downloads of datasets: A multifaceted exploration of influencing factors.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Attitudes on data reuse among internal medicine residents.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- The knowledge and reuse practices of researchers utilising government health information assets, Victoria, Australia, 2008-2020.PloS one · 2024Article
- Investigating the Secondary Use of Clinical Research Data: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Maximizing the utility of public data.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- Globally Accessible Distributed Data Sharing (GADDS): a decentralized FAIR platform to facilitate data sharing in the life sciences.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- A focus groups study on data sharing and research data management.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Open Data Practices among Users of Primary Biodiversity Data.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists.PloS one · 2021Article
- Encoding Collective Knowledge, Instructing Data Reusers: The Collaborative Fixation of a Digital Scientific Data Set.Computer supported cooperative work : CSCW : an international journal · 2021Article
- A Semi-Automated Workflow for FAIR Maturity Indicators in the Life Sciences.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Search, reuse and sharing of research data in materials science and engineering-A qualitative interview study.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The value of sharing scientific research data is widely appreciated, but factors that hinder or prompt the reuse of data remain poorly understood. Using the Theory of Reasoned Action, we test the relationship between the beliefs and attitudes of scientists towards data reuse, and their self-reported data reuse behaviour. To do so, we used existing responses to selected questions from a worldwide survey of scientists developed and administered by the DataONE Usability and Assessment Working Group (thus practicing data reuse ourselves). Results show that the perceived efficacy and efficiency of data reuse are strong predictors of reuse behaviour, and that the perceived importance of data reuse corresponds to greater reuse. Expressed lack of trust in existing data and perceived norms against data reuse were not found to be major impediments for reuse contrary to our expectations. We found that reported use of models and remotely-sensed data was associated with greater reuse. The results suggest that data reuse would be encouraged and normalized by demonstration of its value. We offer some theoretical and practical suggestions that could help to legitimize investment and policies in favor of data sharing.
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.