Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32160189›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: Practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide.

Carol Tenopir, Natalie M Rice, Suzie Allard, Lynn Baird, Josh Borycz, Lisa Christian, Bruce Grant, Robert Olendorf, Robert J Sandusky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Community needs for FAIR pathogen data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. LION Data: A roaring transformation in data visualisation.Computers & chemical engineering · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.Royal Society open science · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. An approach to making life sciences FAIR-FAIR-DS as a tool for Aspergillus fumigatus.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Carol TenopirSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Natalie M RiceCenter for Information and Communication Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3118-0302
Suzie AllardSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Lynn BairdUniversity of Idaho Libraries, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.
Josh BoryczSchool of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-148X
Lisa ChristianCollege of Communication and Information, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Bruce GrantDepartments of Biology and Environmental Science and Sustainability, Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Robert OlendorfNorth Carolina State University Libraries, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.
Robert J SanduskyUIC University Library, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2917-6822

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith data becoming a centerpiece of modern scientific discovery, data sharing by scientists is now a crucial element of scientific progress. This article aims to provide an in-depth examination of the practices and perceptions of data management, including data storage, data sharing, and data use and reuse by scientists around the world.

methodsThe Usability and Assessment Working Group of DataONE, an NSF-funded environmental cyberinfrastructure project, distributed a survey to a multinational and multidisciplinary sample of scientific researchers in a two-waves approach in 2017-2018. We focused our analysis on examining the differences across age groups, sub-disciplines of science, and sectors of employment.

findingsMost respondents displayed what we describe as high and mediocre risk data practices by storing their data on their personal computer, departmental servers or USB drives. Respondents appeared to be satisfied with short-term storage solutions; however, only half of them are satisfied with available mechanisms for storing data beyond the life of the process. Data sharing and data reuse were viewed positively: over 85% of respondents admitted they would be willing to share their data with others and said they would use data collected by others if it could be easily accessed. A vast majority of respondents felt that the lack of access to data generated by other researchers or institutions was a major impediment to progress in science at large, yet only about a half thought that it restricted their own ability to answer scientific questions. Although attitudes towards data sharing and data use and reuse are mostly positive, practice does not always support data storage, sharing, and future reuse. Assistance through data managers or data librarians, readily available data repositories for both long-term and short-term storage, and educational programs for both awareness and to help engender good data practices are clearly needed.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationInterdisciplinary StudiesPerceptionAdultAgedAttitudeHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMiddle AgedResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32160189
PMCPMC7065823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.