Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36750361›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2023

Research Data Management and Data Sharing for Reproducible Research-Results of a Community Survey of the German National Research Data Infrastructure Initiative Neuroscience.

Carsten M Klingner, Michael Denker, Sonja Grün, Michael Hanke, Steffen Oeltze-Jafra, Frank W Ohl, Janina Radny, Stefan Rotter, Hansjörg Scherberger, Alexandra Stein and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Metadata integrity in bioinformatics: Bridging the gap between data and knowledge.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Review
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

13 authors.

Carsten M KlingnerHans Berger Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, 07747, Germany carsten.klingner@med.uni-jena.de petra.ritter@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8815-3391
Michael DenkerInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA-Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, 52428, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1255-7300
Sonja GrünInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA-Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, 52428, Germany.
Michael HankeInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain & Behaviour (INM-7), Research Center Jülich, Jülich, 52428, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6398-6370
Steffen Oeltze-JafraDepartment of Neurology, Otto von Guericke University, Magdeburg, 39120, Germany.
Frank W OhlLeibniz Institute for Neurobiology (LIN), Magdeburg, 38118, Germany.
Janina RadnyBernstein Coordination Site, Jülich, 79104, Germany.
Stefan RotterBernstein Center Freiburg and Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, 79104, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3534-6530
Hansjörg ScherbergerDeutsches Primatenzentrum GmbH - Leibniz-Institut für Primatenforschung, Göttingen, 37077, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6593-2800
Alexandra SteinBernstein Coordination Site, Jülich, 79104, Germany.
Thomas WachtlerFaculty of Biology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, 82152, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2015-6590
Otto W WitteHans Berger Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, 07747, Germany.
Petra RitterBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, 10117, Germany carsten.klingner@med.uni-jena.de petra.ritter@charite.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science is changing: the volume and complexity of data are increasing, the number of studies is growing and the goal of achieving reproducible results requires new solutions for scientific data management. In the field of neuroscience, the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI-Neuro) initiative aims to develop sustainable solutions for research data management (RDM). To obtain an understanding of the present RDM situation in the neuroscience community, NFDI-Neuro conducted a comprehensive survey among the neuroscience community. Here, we report and analyze the results of the survey. We focused the survey and our analysis on current needs, challenges, and opinions about RDM. The German neuroscience community perceives barriers with respect to RDM and data sharing mainly linked to (1) lack of data and metadata standards, (2) lack of community adopted provenance tracking methods, (3) lack of secure and privacy preserving research infrastructure for sensitive data, (4) lack of RDM literacy, and (5) lack of resources (time, personnel, money) for proper RDM. However, an overwhelming majority of community members (91%) indicated that they would be willing to share their data with other researchers and are interested to increase their RDM skills. Taking advantage of this willingness and overcoming the existing barriers requires the systematic development of standards, tools, and infrastructure, the provision of training, education, and support, as well as additional resources for RDM to the research community and a constant dialogue with relevant stakeholders including policy makers to leverage of a culture change through adapted incentivization and regulation.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNeurosciencesData ManagementInformation DisseminationSurveys and Questionnairescommunitydata sharinginformation security and privacymetadataresearch data infrastructuresurvey

Identifiers

PMID36750361
PMCPMC9933933

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.