Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36091999›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022

Aligning restricted access data with FAIR: a systematic review.

Margherita Martorana, Tobias Kuhn, Ronald Siebes, Jacco van Ossenbruggen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Margherita MartoranaDepartment of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tobias KuhnDepartment of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1267-0234
Ronald SiebesDepartment of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jacco van OssenbruggenDepartment of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the complexity of restricted research data is vitally important in the current new era of Open Science. While the FAIR Guiding Principles have been introduced to help researchers to make data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, it is still unclear how the notions of FAIR and Openness can be applied in the context of restricted data. Many methods have been proposed in support of the implementation of the principles, but there is yet no consensus among the scientific community as to the suitable mechanisms of making restricted data FAIR. We present here a systematic literature review to identify the methods applied by scientists when researching restricted data in a FAIR-compliant manner in the context of the FAIR principles. Through the employment of a descriptive and iterative study design, we aim to answer the following three questions: (1) What methods have been proposed to apply the FAIR principles to restricted data?, (2) How can the relevant aspects of the methods proposed be categorized?, (3) What is the maturity of the methods proposed in applying the FAIR principles to restricted data?. After analysis of the 40 included publications, we noticed that the methods found, reflect the stages of the Data Life Cycle, and can be divided into the following Classes: Data Collection, Metadata Representation, Data Processing, Anonymization, Data Publication, Data Usage and Post Data Usage. We observed that a large number of publications used 'Access Control' and 'Usage and License Terms' methods, while others such as 'Embargo on Data Release' and the use of 'Synthetic Data' were used in fewer instances. In conclusion, we are presenting the first extensive literature review on the methods applied to confidential data in the context of FAIR, providing a comprehensive conceptual framework for future research on restricted access data.

Indexed as

Confidential dataFAIR guiding principlesFAIR implementationLinked dataRestricted access data

Identifiers

PMID36091999
PMCPMC9454861

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.