Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

10 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A deafening silence: a lack of data and reproducibility in published bioacoustics research?

ABSTRACT: A study of 100 papers from five journals that make use of bioacoustic recordings shows that only a minority (21%) deposit any of the recordings in a repository, supplementary materials section or a personal website. This lack of deposition hinders re-use of the raw data by other researchers, prevents the reproduction of a project's analyses and confirmation of its findings and impedes progress within the broader bioacoustics community. We make some recommendations for researchers interested in depositing their data.

SUBMITTER: Baker E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6834726 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

A deafening silence: a lack of data and reproducibility in published bioacoustics research?

Baker Ed E Vincent Sarah S

Biodiversity data journal 20191030

A study of 100 papers from five journals that make use of bioacoustic recordings shows that only a minority (21%) deposit any of the recordings in a repository, supplementary materials section or a personal website. This lack of deposition hinders re-use of the raw data by other researchers, prevents the reproduction of a project's analyses and confirmation of its findings and impedes progress within the broader bioacoustics community. We make some recommendations for researchers interested in d ...[more]

PMID: 31723333

Similar Datasets

Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018.

Project description:Reproducibility is integral to science, but difficult to achieve. Previous research has quantified low rates of data availability and results reproducibility across the biological and behavioural sciences. Here, we surveyed 560 empirical publications, published between 1955 and 2018 in the social learning literature, a research topic that spans animal behaviour, behavioural ecology, cultural evolution and evolutionary psychology. Data were recoverable online or through direct data requests for 30% of this sample. Data recovery declines exponentially with time since publication, halving every 6 years, and up to every 9 years for human experimental data. When data for a publication can be recovered, we estimate a high probability of subsequent data usability (87%), analytical clarity (97%) and agreement of published results with reproduced findings (96%). This corresponds to an overall rate of recovering data and reproducing results of 23%, largely driven by the unavailability or incompleteness of data. We thus outline clear measures to improve the reproducibility of research on the ecology and evolution of social behaviour.

| S-EPMC8441137 | biostudies-literature

Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature.Methods and resultsWe reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available.ConclusionA substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.

| S-EPMC3168487 | biostudies-literature

Assessing data availability and research reproducibility in hydrology and water resources.

Project description:There is broad interest to improve the reproducibility of published research. We developed a survey tool to assess the availability of digital research artifacts published alongside peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g. data, models, code, directions for use) and reproducibility of article results. We used the tool to assess 360 of the 1,989 articles published by six hydrology and water resources journals in 2017. Like studies from other fields, we reproduced results for only a small fraction of articles (1.6% of tested articles) using their available artifacts. We estimated, with 95% confidence, that results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of all 1,989 articles. Unlike prior studies, the survey tool identified key bottlenecks to making work more reproducible. Bottlenecks include: only some digital artifacts available (44% of articles), no directions (89%), or all artifacts available but results not reproducible (5%). The tool (or extensions) can help authors, journals, funders, and institutions to self-assess manuscripts, provide feedback to improve reproducibility, and recognize and reward reproducible articles as examples for others.

| S-EPMC6390703 | biostudies-literature

Dissemination of original NMR data enhances reproducibility and integrity in chemical research.

Project description:The notion of data transparency is gaining a strong awareness among the scientific community. The availability of raw data is actually regarded as a fundamental way to advance science by promoting both integrity and reproducibility of research outcomes. Particularly, in the field of natural product and chemical research, NMR spectroscopy is a fundamental tool for structural elucidation and quantification (qNMR). As such, the accessibility of original NMR data, i.e., Free Induction Decays (FIDs), fosters transparency in chemical research and optimizes both peer review and reproducibility of reports by offering the fundamental tools to perform efficient structural verification. Although original NMR data are known to contain a wealth of information, they are rarely accessible along with published data. This viewpoint discusses the relevance of the availability of original NMR data as part of good research practices not only to promote structural correctness, but also to enhance traceability and reproducibility of both chemical and biological results.

| S-EPMC5001890 | biostudies-literature

Quality control of protein reagents for the improvement of research data reproducibility.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8121922 | biostudies-literature

Reproducibility discrepancies following reanalysis of raw data for a previously published study on diisononyl phthalate (DINP) in rats.

Project description:A 2011 publication by Boberg et al. entitled "Reproductive and behavioral effects of diisononyl phthalate (DINP) in perinatally exposed rats" [1] reported statistically significant changes in sperm parameters, testicular histopathology, anogenital distance and retained nipples in developing males. Using the statistical methods as reported by Boberg et al. (2011) [1], we reanalyzed the publically available raw data ([dataset] US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2016) [2]. The output of our reanalysis and the discordances with the data as published in Boberg et al. (2011) [1] are highlighted herein. Further discussion of the basis for the replication discordances and the insufficiency of the Boberg et al. (2011) [1] response to address them can be found in a companion letter of correspondence (doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2017.03.013.; (Morfeld et al., 2011) [3]).

| S-EPMC5459566 | biostudies-literature

Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications.MethodsThe NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access.ResultsOur search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis.ConclusionsCurrently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.

| S-EPMC7049215 | biostudies-literature

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates.

Project description:An important unknown during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths and as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomatic. While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19.MethodsPubmed, Medline, SSRN, and Medrxiv were searched using a set of terms and Boolean operators on 25/04/2020 and re-searched on 14/05/2020, 21/05/2020 and 16/06/2020. Articles were screened for inclusion by both authors. Meta-analysis was performed in Stata 15.1 by using the metan command, based on IFR and confidence intervals extracted from each study. Google/Google Scholar was used to assess the grey literature relating to government reports.ResultsAfter exclusions, there were 24 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and June 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point estimate of IFR of 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%) with high heterogeneity (p < 0.001).ConclusionBased on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policymaking on this front.

| S-EPMC7524446 | biostudies-literature

The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research.

Project description:Low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and contribute to both delays and costs of therapeutic drug development. An analysis of past studies indicates that the cumulative (total) prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50%, resulting in approximately US$28,000,000,000 (US$28B)/year spent on preclinical research that is not reproducible-in the United States alone. We outline a framework for solutions and a plan for long-term improvements in reproducibility rates that will help to accelerate the discovery of life-saving therapies and cures.

| S-EPMC4461318 | biostudies-literature

Lack of Patient Understanding of Hospital-Acquired Infection Data Published on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare Website.

Project description:Public reporting of hospital quality data is a key element of US healthcare reform. Data for hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are especially complex.To assess interpretability of HAI data as presented on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare website among patients who might benefit from access to these data.We randomly selected inpatients at a large tertiary referral hospital from June to September 2014. Participants performed 4 distinct tasks comparing hypothetical HAI data for 2 hospitals, and the accuracy of their comparisons was assessed. Data were presented using the same tabular formats used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Demographic characteristics and healthcare experience data were also collected.Participants (N=110) correctly identified the better of 2 hospitals when given written descriptions of the HAI measure in 72% of the responses (95% CI, 66%-79%). Adding the underlying numerical data (number of infections, patient-time, and standardized infection ratio) to the written descriptions reduced correct responses to 60% (55%-66%). When the written HAI measure description was not informative (identical for both hospitals), 50% answered correctly (42%-58%). When no written HAI measure description was provided and hospitals differed by denominator for infection rate, 38% answered correctly (31%-45%).Current public HAI data presentation methods may be inadequate. When presented with numeric HAI data, study participants incorrectly compared hospitals on the basis of HAI data in more than 40% of the responses. Research is needed to identify better ways to convey these data to the public.

| S-EPMC4731310 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data