Dataset Information

An analysis and metric of reusable data licensing practices for biomedical resources.

ABSTRACT: Data are the foundation of science, and there is an increasing focus on how data can be reused and enhanced to drive scientific discoveries. However, most seemingly "open data" do not provide legal permissions for reuse and redistribution. The inability to integrate and redistribute our collective data resources blocks innovation and stymies the creation of life-improving diagnostic and drug selection tools. To help the biomedical research and research support communities (e.g. libraries, funders, repositories, etc.) understand and navigate the data licensing landscape, the (Re)usable Data Project (RDP) (http://reusabledata.org) assesses the licensing characteristics of data resources and how licensing behaviors impact reuse. We have created a ruleset to determine the reusability of data resources and have applied it to 56 scientific data resources (e.g. databases) to date. The results show significant reuse and interoperability barriers. Inspired by game-changing projects like Creative Commons, the Wikipedia Foundation, and the Free Software movement, we hope to engage the scientific community in the discussion regarding the legal use and reuse of scientific data, including the balance of openness and how to create sustainable data resources in an increasingly competitive environment.

SUBMITTER: Carbon S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6436688 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An analysis and metric of reusable data licensing practices for biomedical resources.

Carbon Seth S Champieux Robin R McMurry Julie A JA Winfree Lilly L Wyatt Letisha R LR Haendel Melissa A MA

PloS one 20190327 3

Data are the foundation of science, and there is an increasing focus on how data can be reused and enhanced to drive scientific discoveries. However, most seemingly "open data" do not provide legal permissions for reuse and redistribution. The inability to integrate and redistribute our collective data resources blocks innovation and stymies the creation of life-improving diagnostic and drug selection tools. To help the biomedical research and research support communities (e.g. libraries, funder ...[more]

PMID: 30917137

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThorough data stewardship is a key enabler of comprehensive health research. Processes such as data collection, storage, access, sharing, and analytics require researchers to follow elaborate data management strategies properly and consistently. Studies have shown that findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data leads to improved data sharing in different scientific domains.ObjectiveThis scoping review identifies and discusses concepts, approaches, implementation experiences, and lessons learned in FAIR initiatives in health research data.MethodsThe Arksey and O'Malley stage-based methodological framework for scoping reviews was applied. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to access relevant publications. Articles written in English, published between 2014 and 2020, and addressing FAIR concepts or practices in the health domain were included. The 3 data sources were deduplicated using a reference management software. In total, 2 independent authors reviewed the eligibility of each article based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A charting tool was used to extract information from the full-text papers. The results were reported using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.ResultsA total of 2.18% (34/1561) of the screened articles were included in the final review. The authors reported FAIRification approaches, which include interpolation, inclusion of comprehensive data dictionaries, repository design, semantic interoperability, ontologies, data quality, linked data, and requirement gathering for FAIRification tools. Challenges and mitigation strategies associated with FAIRification, such as high setup costs, data politics, technical and administrative issues, privacy concerns, and difficulties encountered in sharing health data despite its sensitive nature were also reported. We found various workflows, tools, and infrastructures designed by different groups worldwide to facilitate the FAIRification of health research data. We also uncovered a wide range of problems and questions that researchers are trying to address by using the different workflows, tools, and infrastructures. Although the concept of FAIR data stewardship in the health research domain is relatively new, almost all continents have been reached by at least one network trying to achieve health data FAIRness. Documented outcomes of FAIRification efforts include peer-reviewed publications, improved data sharing, facilitated data reuse, return on investment, and new treatments. Successful FAIRification of data has informed the management and prognosis of various diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurological diseases. Efforts to FAIRify data on a wider variety of diseases have been ongoing since the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsThis work summarises projects, tools, and workflows for the FAIRification of health research data. The comprehensive review shows that implementing the FAIR concept in health data stewardship carries the promise of improved research data management and transparency in the era of big data and open research publishing.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/22505.

Project description:Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.

Dataset Information

An analysis and metric of reusable data licensing practices for biomedical resources.

Publications

An analysis and metric of reusable data licensing practices for biomedical resources.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets