Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39805856›Full record

ArticleScientific data2025

On the Readiness of Scientific Data Papers for a Fair and Transparent Use in Machine Learning.

Joan Giner-Miguelez, Abel Gómez, Jordi Cabot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Joan Giner-MiguelezInternet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain. joan.giner@bsc.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2335-6977
Abel GómezInternet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain.
Jordi CabotLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To ensure the fairness and trustworthiness of machine learning (ML) systems, recent legislative initiatives and relevant research in the ML community have pointed out the need to document the data used to train ML models. Besides, data-sharing practices in many scientific domains have evolved in recent years for reproducibility purposes. In this sense, academic institutions' adoption of these practices has encouraged researchers to publish their data and technical documentation in peer-reviewed publications such as data papers. In this study, we analyze how this broader scientific data documentation meets the needs of the ML community and regulatory bodies for its use in ML technologies. We examine a sample of 4041 data papers of different domains, assessing their coverage and trends in the requested dimensions and comparing them to those from an ML-focused venue (NeurIPS D&B), which publishes papers describing datasets. As a result, we propose a set of recommendation guidelines for data creators and scientific data publishers to increase their data's preparedness for its transparent and fairer use in ML technologies.

Identifiers

PMID39805856
PMCPMC11730645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.