ArticlePloS one2020
Research data sharing in the Australian national science agency: Understanding the relative importance of organisational, disciplinary and domain-specific influences.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study delineates the relative importance of organisational, research discipline and application domain factors in influencing researchers' data sharing practices in Australia's national scientific and industrial research agency. We surveyed 354 researchers and found that the number of data deposits made by researchers were related to the openness of the data culture and the contractual inhibitors experienced by researchers. Multi-level modelling revealed that organisational unit membership explained 10%, disciplinary membership explained 6%, and domain membership explained 4% of the variance in researchers' intentions to share research data. However, only the organisational measure of openness to data sharing explained significant unique variance in data sharing. Thus, whereas previous research has tended to focus on disciplinary influences on data sharing, this study suggests that factors operating within the organisation have the most powerful influence on researchers' data sharing practices. The research received approval from the organisation's Human Research Ethics Committee (no. 014/18).
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.