ArticlePloS one2025
Investigating the practices and preferences of health scholars in sharing open research data.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This survey-based study examines health science scholars' perceptions of collaborative research behavior and sharing open research data in university settings. A total of 362 health science scholars from U.S. universities participated in an online questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses of the data included frequencies, cross-tabulations, descriptive ratio statistics, and the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Four open-ended questions were also analyzed to provide further insights into the survey findings. The study reveals that health scholars share their data with colleagues within their institution or project, demonstrating a lesser inclination toward open research data sharing practices through institutional repositories and journal supplements. Motivating factors and challenges influencing researchers' decisions to share their research data were also identified. While scientific and knowledge advancement served as major incentives, health scholars working with human-related data expressed concerns about privacy and confidentiality breaches, which are primary barriers to data sharing. Some participants indicated that requirements and policies also influenced their willingness to share data. Disciplinary variations were observed regarding data-sharing practices through journal supplements, secondary data analysis, and personal communication. Furthermore, significant differences emerged between funded and non-funded scholars, impacting their practices, motivations, and challenges in sharing open research data. Important factors driving health science scholars to share open research data include resources, policy compliance, and requirements. This study contributes valuable insights for policy development by investigating factors that can foster openness and sharing of research data in the health sciences. The findings shed light on the complexities and considerations associated with open data-sharing practices, enabling stakeholders to develop effective strategies and frameworks.
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.