Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35582791›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution.

Dominique G Roche, Ilias Berberi, Fares Dhane, Félix Lauzon, Sandrine Soeharjono, Roslyn Dakin, Sandra A Binning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Data rescue: saving environmental data from extinction.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
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

7 authors.

Dominique G RocheDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.ORCID 0000-0002-3326-864X
Ilias BerberiDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.ORCID 0000-0003-3051-8145
Fares DhaneDépartement de science biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada H3C 3J7.
Félix LauzonDépartement de science biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada H3C 3J7.
Sandrine SoeharjonoDépartement de science biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada H3C 3J7.ORCID 0000-0003-0885-3414
Roslyn DakinDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6.ORCID 0000-0002-3140-3975
Sandra A BinningDépartement de science biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada H3C 3J7.ORCID 0000-0002-2804-9979

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many leading journals in ecology and evolution now mandate open data upon publication. Yet, there is very little oversight to ensure the completeness and reusability of archived datasets, and we currently have a poor understanding of the factors associated with high-quality data sharing. We assessed 362 open datasets linked to first- or senior-authored papers published by 100 principal investigators (PIs) in the fields of ecology and evolution over a period of 7 years to identify predictors of data completeness and reusability (data archiving quality). Datasets scored low on these metrics: 56.4% were complete and 45.9% were reusable. Data reusability, but not completeness, was slightly higher for more recently archived datasets and PIs with less seniority. Journal open data policy, PI gender and PI corresponding author status were unrelated to data archiving quality. However, PI identity explained a large proportion of the variance in data completeness (27.8%) and reusability (22.0%), indicating consistent inter-individual differences in data sharing practices by PIs across time and contexts. Several PIs consistently shared data of either high or low archiving quality, but most PIs were inconsistent in how well they shared. One explanation for the high intra-individual variation we observed is that PIs often conduct research through students and postdoctoral researchers, who may be responsible for the data collection, curation and archiving. Levels of data literacy vary among trainees and PIs may not regularly perform quality control over archived files. Our findings suggest that research data management training and culture within a PI's group are likely to be more important determinants of data archiving quality than other factors such as a journal's open data policy. Greater incentives and training for individual researchers at all career stages could improve data sharing practices and enhance data transparency and reusability.

Indexed as

EcologyInformation DisseminationData AccuracyData CollectionHumansdata sharingfair datametascienceopen sciencepublic data archivingreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID35582791
PMCPMC9114975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.