Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178887›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Research data management in agricultural sciences in Germany: We are not yet where we want to be.

Matthias Senft, Ulrike Stahl, Nikolai Svoboda

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Matthias SenftLeibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3478-4774
Ulrike StahlJulius Kühn Institute (JKI)-Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Quedlinburg, Germany.
Nikolai SvobodaLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To meet the future challenges and foster integrated and holistic research approaches in agricultural sciences, new and sustainable methods in research data management (RDM) are needed. The involvement of scientific users is a critical success factor for their development. We conducted an online survey in 2020 among different user groups in agricultural sciences about their RDM practices and needs. In total, the questionnaire contained 52 questions on information about produced and (re-)used data, data quality aspects, information about the use of standards, publication practices and legal aspects of agricultural research data, the current situation in RDM in regards to awareness, consulting and curricula as well as needs of the agricultural community in respect to future developments. We received 196 (partially) completed questionnaires from data providers, data users, infrastructure and information service providers. In addition to the diversity in the research data landscape of agricultural sciences in Germany, the study reveals challenges, deficits and uncertainties in handling research data in agricultural sciences standing in the way of access and efficient reuse of valuable research data. However, the study also suggests and discusses potential solutions to enhance data publications, facilitate and secure data re-use, ensure data quality and develop services (i.e. training, support and bundling services). Therefore, our research article provides the basis for the development of common RDM, future infrastructures and services needed to foster the cultural change in handling research data across agricultural sciences in Germany and beyond.

Indexed as

CurriculumData ManagementAgricultureGermany

Identifiers

PMID36178887
PMCPMC9524626

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.