ArticlePloS one2024
COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), scientific research data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to massive research activities and an unprecedented number of topical publications in a short time. However, no evaluation has assessed whether this COVID-19-related research data has complied with FAIR principles (or FAIRness).
objectiveOur objective was to investigate the availability of open data in COVID-19-related research and to assess compliance with FAIRness.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search and retrieved all open-access articles related to COVID-19 from journals indexed in PubMed, available in the Europe PubMed Central database, published from January 2020 through June 2023, using the metareadr package. Using rtransparent, a validated automated tool, we identified articles with links to their raw data hosted in a public repository. We then screened the link and included those repositories that included data specifically for their pertaining paper. Subsequently, we automatically assessed the adherence of the repositories to the FAIR principles using FAIRsFAIR Research Data Object Assessment Service (F-UJI) and rfuji package. The FAIR scores ranged from 1-22 and had four components. We reported descriptive analysis for each article type, journal category, and repository. We used linear regression models to find the most influential factors on the FAIRness of data.
results5,700 URLs were included in the final analysis, sharing their data in a general-purpose repository. The mean (standard deviation, SD) level of compliance with FAIR metrics was 9.4 (4.88). The percentages of moderate or advanced compliance were as follows: Findability: 100.0%, Accessibility: 21.5%, Interoperability: 46.7%, and Reusability: 61.3%. The overall and component-wise monthly trends were consistent over the follow-up. Reviews (9.80, SD = 5.06, n = 160), articles in dental journals (13.67, SD = 3.51, n = 3) and Harvard Dataverse (15.79, SD = 3.65, n = 244) had the highest mean FAIRness scores, whereas letters (7.83, SD = 4.30, n = 55), articles in neuroscience journals (8.16, SD = 3.73, n = 63), and those deposited in GitHub (4.50, SD = 0.13, n = 2,152) showed the lowest scores. Regression models showed that the repository was the most influential factor on FAIRness scores (R2 = 0.809).
conclusionThis paper underscored the potential for improvement across all facets of FAIR principles, specifically emphasizing Interoperability and Reusability in the data shared within general repositories during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.