Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36070283›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Neither carrots nor sticks? Challenges surrounding data sharing from the perspective of research funding agencies-A qualitative expert interview study.

Michael Anger, Christian Wendelborn, Eva C Winkler, Christoph Schickhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Current best practices and future opportunities for reproducible findings using large-scale neuroimaging in psychiatry.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Michael AngerSection for Translational Medical Ethics, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9328-510X
Christian WendelbornSection for Translational Medical Ethics, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Eva C WinklerSection for Translational Medical Ethics/Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph SchickhardtSection for Translational Medical Ethics, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData Sharing is widely recognised as crucial for accelerating scientific research and improving its quality. However, data sharing is still not a common practice. Funding agencies tend to facilitate the sharing of research data by both providing incentives and requiring data sharing as part of their policies and conditions for awarding grants. The goal of our article is to answer the following question: What challenges do international funding agencies see when it comes to their own efforts to foster and implement data sharing through their policies?

methodsWe conducted a series of sixteen guideline-based expert interviews with representatives of leading international funding agencies. As contact persons for open science at their respective agencies, they offered their perspectives and experiences concerning their organisations' data sharing policies. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the interviews and categorised the challenges perceived by funding agencies.

resultsWe identify and illustrate six challenges surrounding data sharing policies as perceived by leading funding agencies: The design of clear policies, monitoring of compliance, sanctions for non-compliance, incentives, support, and limitations for funders' own capabilities. However, our interviews also show how funders approach potential solutions to overcome these challenges, for example by coordinating with other agencies or adjusting grant evaluation metrics to incentivise data sharing. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionOur interviews point to existing flaws in funders' data sharing policies, such as a lack of clarity, a lack of monitoring of funded researchers' data sharing behaviour, and a lack of incentives. A number of agencies could suggest potential solutions but often struggle with the overall complexity of data sharing and the implementation of these measures. Funders cannot solve each challenge by themselves, but they can play an active role and lead joint efforts towards a culture of data sharing.

Indexed as

Daucus carotaFinancing, OrganizedInformation DisseminationPolicyQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID36070283
PMCPMC9451069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.