ArticlePloS one2020
The views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers with data sharing and reuse: A meta-synthesis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of the status of veterinary epidemiological research in two species regarding the FAIR guiding principles.BMC veterinary research · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Developing a Data Trust Model (Not Only) for Sleep Research: Conceptual Study and Quantitative Survey.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Good, bad, different or something else? A scoping review of the convictions, conventions and developments around quality in qualitative research.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Perceptual and technical barriers in sharing and formatting metadata accompanying omics studies.Cell genomics · 2025Review
- Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- 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
- Reusability challenges of livestock production data to improve animal health.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Overture: an open-source genomics data platform.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Data accessibility in the chemical sciences: an analysis of recent practice in organic chemistry journals.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2025Article
- Open Science in Spain: Influence of Personal and Contextual Factors on Deposit Patterns.F1000Research · 2025Article
- The most prevalent perceived barriers to sharing research data at the point of manuscript acceptance in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Data as scientific currency: Challenges experienced by researchers with sharing health data in sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- The challenges of research data management in cardiovascular science: a DGK and DZHK position paper-executive summary.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024Review
- The knowledge and reuse practices of researchers utilising government health information assets, Victoria, Australia, 2008-2020.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Perceptions of Data Set Experts on Important Characteristics of Health Data Sets Ready for Machine Learning: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunding agencies and research journals are increasingly demanding that researchers share their data in public repositories. Despite these requirements, researchers still withhold data, refuse to share, and deposit data that lacks annotation. We conducted a meta-synthesis to examine the views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers on data sharing and reuse of research data.
methodsWe searched the published and unpublished literature for studies on data sharing by researchers in academic institutions. Two independent reviewers screened citations and abstracts, then full-text articles. Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators. The abstracted data was read and reread in order to generate codes. Key concepts were identified and thematic analysis was used for data synthesis.
resultsWe reviewed 2005 records and included 45 studies along with 3 companion reports. The studies were published between 2003 and 2018 and most were conducted in North America (60%) or Europe (17%). The four major themes that emerged were data integrity, responsible conduct of research, feasibility of sharing data, and value of sharing data. Researchers lack time, resources, and skills to effectively share their data in public repositories. Data quality is affected by this, along with subjective decisions around what is considered to be worth sharing. Deficits in infrastructure also impede the availability of research data. Incentives for sharing data are lacking.
conclusionResearchers lack skills to share data in a manner that is efficient and effective. Improved infrastructure support would allow them to make data available quickly and seamlessly. The lack of incentives for sharing research data with regards to academic appointment, promotion, recognition, and rewards need to be addressed.
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.