Post-publication sharing of data and tools.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schofield PN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6711854 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Post-publication sharing of data and tools.
Schofield Paul N PN Bubela Tania T Weaver Thomas T Portilla Lili L Brown Stephen D SD Hancock John M JM Einhorn David D Tocchini-Valentini Glauco G Hrabe de Angelis Martin M Rosenthal Nadia N
Nature 20090901 7261
Despite existing guidelines on access to data and bioresources, good practice is not widespread. A meeting of mouse researchers in Rome proposes ways to promote a culture of sharing. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Growth of the open science movement has drawn significant attention to data sharing and availability across the scientific community. In this study, we tested the ability to recover data collected under a particular funder-imposed requirement of public availability. We assessed overall data recovery success, tested whether characteristics of the data or data creator were indicators of recovery success, and identified hurdles to data recovery. Overall the majority of data were not recovered (26% recovery of 315 data projects), a similar result to journal-driven efforts to recover data. Field of research was the most important indicator of recovery success, but neither home agency sector nor age of data were determinants of recovery. While we did not find a relationship between recovery of data and age of data, age did predict whether we could find contact information for the grantee. The main hurdles to data recovery included those associated with communication with the researcher; loss of contact with the data creator accounted for half (50%) of unrecoverable datasets, and unavailability of contact information accounted for 35% of unrecoverable datasets. Overall, our results suggest that funding agencies and journals face similar challenges to enforcement of data requirements. We advocate that funding agencies could improve the availability of the data they fund by dedicating more resources to enforcing compliance with data requirements, providing data-sharing tools and technical support to awardees, and administering stricter consequences for those who ignore data sharing preconditions.
| S-EPMC6034829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous arguments strongly support the practice of open science, which offers several societal and individual benefits. For individual researchers, sharing research artifacts such as data can increase trust and transparency, improve the reproducibility of one's own work, and catalyze new collaborations. Despite a general appreciation of the benefits of data sharing, research data are often only available to the original investigators. For data that are shared, lack of useful metadata and documentation make them challenging to reuse. In this paper, we argue that a lack of incentives and infrastructure for making data useful is the biggest barrier to creating a culture of widespread data sharing. We compare data with code, examine computational environments in the context of their ability to facilitate the reproducibility of research, provide some practical guidance on how one can improve the chances of their data being reusable, and partially bridge the incentive gap. While previous papers have focused on describing ideal best practices for data and code, we focus on common-sense ideas for sharing tabular data for a target audience of academics working in data science adjacent fields who are about to submit for publication.
| S-EPMC8672137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years numerous studies have undertaken to measure the impact of patents, material transfer agreements, data-withholding and commercialization pressures on biomedical researchers. Of particular concern is the theory that such pressures may have negative effects on academic and other upstream researchers. In response to these concerns, commentators in some research communities have called for an increased level of access to, and sharing of, data and research materials. We have been studying how data and materials are shared in the community of researchers who use the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) as a model organism for biological research. Specifically, we conducted a textual analysis of academic articles referencing C. elegans, reviewed C. elegans repository request lists, scanned patents that reference C. elegans and conducted a broad survey of C. elegans researchers. Of particular importance in our research was the role of the C. elegans Gene Knockout Consortium in the facilitation of sharing in this community.ResultsOur research suggests that a culture of sharing exists within the C. elegans research community. Furthermore, our research provides insight into how this sharing operates and the role of the culture that underpins it.ConclusionsThe greater scientific community is likely to benefit from understanding the factors that motivate C. elegans researchers to share. In this sense, our research is a 'response' to calls for a greater amount of sharing in other research communities, such as the mouse community, specifically, the call for increased investment and support of centralized resource sharing infrastructure, grant-based funding of data-sharing, clarity of third party recommendations regarding sharing, third party insistence of post-publication data sharing, a decrease in patenting and restrictive material transfer agreements, and increased attribution and reward.
| S-EPMC3019234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:National Materials Data Management and Service platform (NMDMS) is a materials data repository for the publication and sharing of heterogeneous materials scientific data and follows the FAIR principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. To ensure data are 'Interoperable, NMDMS uses a user-friendly semi-structured scientific data model, named dynamic container', to define, exchange, and store heterogeneous scientific data. Then, a personalized yet standardized data submission subsystem, a rigorous project data review and publication subsystem, and a multi-granularity data query and retrieval subsystem collaboratively make data 'Reusable', 'Findable', and 'Accessible'. Finally, China's "National Key R&D Program: Material Genetic Engineering Key Special Project" has adopted NMDMS to publish and share its project data. There are 12,251,040 pieces of data published in NMDMS since 2018, under 87 categories and 1,912 user-defined schemas from 45 projects. The platform has been accessed 908875 times, and 2403,208 pieces of data have been downloaded. In short, NMDMS effectively accelerates the publication and sharing of material project data in China.
| S-EPMC9794830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the advent of whole exome (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) as tools for disease gene discovery, rare variant filtering, prioritization and data sharing have become essential components of the search for disease genes and variants potentially contributing to disease phenotypes. The computational storage, data manipulation, and bioinformatic interpretation of thousands to millions of variants identified in ES and GS, respectively, is a challenging task. To aid in that endeavor, we constructed PhenoDB, GeneMatcher and VariantMatcher.ResultsPhenoDB is an accessible, freely available, web-based platform that allows users to store, share, analyze and interpret their patients' phenotypes and variants from ES/GS data. GeneMatcher is accessible to all stakeholders as a web-based tool developed to connect individuals (researchers, clinicians, health care providers and patients) around the globe with interest in the same gene(s), variant(s) or phenotype(s). Finally, VariantMatcher was developed to enable public sharing of variant-level data and phenotypic information from individuals sequenced as part of multiple disease gene discovery projects. Here we provide updates on PhenoDB and GeneMatcher applications and implementation and introduce VariantMatcher.ConclusionEach of these tools has facilitated worldwide data sharing and data analysis and improved our ability to connect genes to phenotypic traits. Further development of these platforms will expand variant analysis, interpretation, novel disease-gene discovery and facilitate functional annotation of the human genome for clinical genomics implementation and the precision medicine initiative.
| S-EPMC8371856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an abundance of free online tools accessible to scientists and others that can be used for online networking, data sharing and measuring research impact. Despite this, few scientists know how these tools can be used or fail to take advantage of using them as an integrated pipeline to raise awareness of their research outputs. In this article, the authors describe their experiences with these tools and how they can make best use of them to make their scientific research generally more accessible, extending its reach beyond their own direct networks, and communicating their ideas to new audiences. These efforts have the potential to drive science by sparking new collaborations and interdisciplinary research projects that may lead to future publications, funding and commercial opportunities. The intent of this article is to: describe some of these freely accessible networking tools and affiliated products; demonstrate from our own experiences how they can be utilized effectively; and, inspire their adoption by new users for the benefit of science.
| S-EPMC5580431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Technological advancements in combination with significant reductions in price have made it practically feasible to run experiments with multiple eye trackers. This enables new types of experiments with simultaneous recordings of eye movement data from several participants, which is of interest for researchers in, e.g., social and educational psychology. The Lund University Humanities Laboratory recently acquired 25 remote eye trackers, which are connected over a local wireless network. As a first step toward running experiments with this setup, demanding situations with real time sharing of gaze data were investigated in terms of network performance as well as clock and screen synchronization. Results show that data can be shared with a sufficiently low packet loss (0.1 %) and latency (M = 3 ms, M A D = 2 ms) across 8 eye trackers at a rate of 60 Hz. For a similar performance using 24 computers, the send rate needs to be reduced to 20 Hz. To help researchers conduct similar measurements on their own multi-eye-tracker setup, open source software written in Python and PsychoPy are provided. Part of the software contains a minimal working example to help researchers kick-start experiments with two or more eye trackers.
| S-EPMC5541105 | biostudies-other
Project description:The movement to bring datasets into the scholarly record as first class research products (validated, preserved, cited, and credited) has been inching forward for some time, but now the pace is quickening. As data publication venues proliferate, significant debate continues over formats, processes, and terminology. Here, we present an overview of data publication initiatives underway and the current conversation, highlighting points of consensus and issues still in contention. Data publication implementations differ in a variety of factors, including the kind of documentation, the location of the documentation relative to the data, and how the data is validated. Publishers may present data as supplemental material to a journal article, with a descriptive "data paper," or independently. Complicating the situation, different initiatives and communities use the same terms to refer to distinct but overlapping concepts. For instance, the term published means that the data is publicly available and citable to virtually everyone, but it may or may not imply that the data has been peer-reviewed. In turn, what is meant by data peer review is far from defined; standards and processes encompass the full range employed in reviewing the literature, plus some novel variations. Basic data citation is a point of consensus, but the general agreement on the core elements of a dataset citation frays if the data is dynamic or part of a larger set. Even as data publication is being defined, some are looking past publication to other metaphors, notably "data as software," for solutions to the more stubborn problems.
| S-EPMC4097345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rapid release of prepublication data has served the field of genomics well. Attendees at a workshop in Toronto recommend extending the practice to other biological data sets.
| S-EPMC3073843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, more and more health data are being generated. These data come not only from professional health systems, but also from wearable devices. All these 'big data' put together can be utilized to optimize treatments for each unique patient ('precision medicine'). For this to be possible, it is necessary that hospitals, academia and industry work together to bridge the 'valley of death' of translational medicine. However, hospitals and academia often are reluctant to share their data with other parties, even though the patient is actually the owner of his/her own health data. Academic hospitals usually invest a lot of time in setting up clinical trials and collecting data, and want to be the first ones to publish papers on this data. There are some publicly available datasets, but these are usually only shared after study (and publication) completion, which means a severe delay of months or even years before others can analyse the data. One solution is to incentivize the hospitals to share their data with (other) academic institutes and the industry. Here, we show an analysis of the current literature around data sharing, and we discuss five aspects of data sharing in the medical domain: publisher requirements, data ownership, growing support for data sharing, data sharing initiatives and how the use of federated data might be a solution. We also discuss some potential future developments around data sharing, such as medical crowdsourcing and data generalists.
| S-EPMC7246891 | biostudies-literature