Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38662676›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Seek and you may (not) find: A multi-institutional analysis of where research data are shared.

Lisa R Johnston, Alicia Hofelich Mohr, Joel Herndon, Shawna Taylor, Jake R Carlson, Lizhao Ge, Jennifer Moore, Jonathan Petters, Wendy Kozlowski, Cynthia Hudson Vitale

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa R JohnstonData, Academic Planning & Institutional Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Alicia Hofelich MohrLiberal Arts Technologies and Innovation Services, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7644-4105
Joel HerndonCenter for Data and Visualization Sciences, Duke University Libraries, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9995-9040
Shawna TaylorAssociation of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Jake R CarlsonUniversity at Buffalo Libraries, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, United States of America.
Lizhao GeMilken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Jennifer MooreUniversity Libraries, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Jonathan PettersData Services, University Libraries, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0853-5814
Wendy KozlowskiResearch Data and Open Scholarship, Cornell University Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America.
Cynthia Hudson VitaleAssociation of Research Libraries, Washington, DC., United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5581-5678
Association of Research Libraries · USCornell University · USDuke University · USMilken Institute · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USVirginia Tech · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research data sharing has become an expected component of scientific research and scholarly publishing practice over the last few decades, due in part to requirements for federally funded research. As part of a larger effort to better understand the workflows and costs of public access to research data, this project conducted a high-level analysis of where academic research data is most frequently shared. To do this, we leveraged the DataCite and Crossref application programming interfaces (APIs) in search of Publisher field elements demonstrating which data repositories were utilized by researchers from six academic research institutions between 2012-2022. In addition, we also ran a preliminary analysis of the quality of the metadata associated with these published datasets, comparing the extent to which information was missing from metadata fields deemed important for public access to research data. Results show that the top 10 publishers accounted for 89.0% to 99.8% of the datasets connected with the institutions in our study. Known data repositories, including institutional data repositories hosted by those institutions, were initially lacking from our sample due to varying metadata standards and practices. We conclude that the metadata quality landscape for published research datasets is uneven; key information, such as author affiliation, is often incomplete or missing from source data repositories and aggregators. To enhance the findability, interoperability, accessibility, and reusability (FAIRness) of research data, we provide a set of concrete recommendations that repositories and data authors can take to improve scholarly metadata associated with shared datasets.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationMetadataBiomedical ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID38662676
PMCPMC11045069
OpenAlexW4395448898

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.