ArticleScientific data2025
How does academia recognize the contribution of scientific data? Evidence from data contributors' authorship.
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 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.
- How does academia recognize the contribution of scientific data? Evidence from data contributors' authorship.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific data has become a cornerstone of contemporary biomedical research, yet the academic recognition of data contributions remains underexplored. In this study, we leveraged the open-access biomedical literature in the PMC (PubMed Central) to identify GEO (Gene Expression Omnibus) datasets and extract their associated original papers. By examining the authorship relationships between dataset contributors and paper authors, we quantitatively assessed the academic recognition of scientific data. Our findings reveal that approximately 80% of dataset contributors play pivotal roles in their respective original papers, either as first or corresponding authors, with this proportion continuing to rise. This trend highlights the growing importance of data collection, processing, and analysis in the research process, along with its increasing recognition by the scientific community. Furthermore, we observed that high-impact journals invest more resources in enhancing data quality, thereby improving research credibility, academic influence, and overall research outcomes. These results underscore the gradual shift toward recognizing the value of scientific data work, which is critical for advancing research quality.
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.