SynthesisDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2018
The tragedy of the biodiversity data commons: a data impediment creeping nigher?
Synthesis in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Operationalizing "One Health" as "One Digital Health" Through a Global Framework That Emphasizes Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits From the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Related Digital Technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Open Data Practices among Users of Primary Biodiversity Data.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Measuring epistemic success of a biodiversity citizen science program: A citation study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Towards a Post-Graduate Level Curriculum for Biodiversity Informatics. Perspectives from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Community.Biodiversity data journal · 2021Article
- A multitrophic perspective on biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research.Advances in ecological research · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers are embracing the open access movement to facilitate unrestricted availability of scientific results. One sign of this willingness is the steady increase in data freely shared online, which has prompted a corresponding increase in the number of papers using such data. Publishing datasets is a time-consuming process that is often seen as a courtesy, rather than a necessary step in the research process. Making data accessible allows further research, provides basic information for decision-making and contributes to transparency in science. Nevertheless, the ease of access to heaps of data carries a perception of 'free lunch for all', and the work of data publishers is largely going unnoticed. Acknowledging such a significant effort involving the creation, management and publication of a dataset remains a flimsy, not well established practice in the scientific community. In a meta-analysis of published literature, we have observed various dataset citation practices, but mostly (92%) consisting of merely citing the data repository rather than the data publisher. Failing to recognize the work of data publishers might lead to a decrease in the number of quality datasets shared online, compromising potential research that is dependent on the availability of such data. We make an urgent appeal to raise awareness about this issue.
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.