Dataset Information

Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a descriptive analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As Canada increases requirements for research data management and sharing, there is value in identifying how research data are shared and what has been done to make them findable and reusable. This study aimed to understand Canada's data-sharing landscape by reviewing how data funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) are shared and comparing researchers' data-sharing practices to best practices for research data management and sharing.

Methods

We performed a descriptive analysis of CIHR-funded publications from PubMed and PubMed Central published between 1946 and Dec. 31, 2019, that indicated that the research data underlying the results of the publication were shared. We analyzed each publication to identify how and where data were shared, who shared data and what documentation was included to support data reuse.

Results

Of 4144 CIHR-funded publications identified, 1876 (45.2%) included accessible data, 935 (22.6%) stated that data were available via request or application, and 300 (7.2%) stated that data sharing was not applicable or possible; we found no evidence of data sharing in 1558 publications (37.6%). Frequent data-sharing methods included via a repository (1549 [37.4%]), within supplementary files (1048 [25.3%]) and via request or application (935 [22.6%]). Overall, 554 publications (13.4%) included documentation that would facilitate data reuse.

Interpretation

Publications funded by the CIHR largely lack the metadata, access instructions and documentation to facilitate data discovery and reuse. Without measures to address these concerns and enhanced support for researchers seeking to implement best practices for research data management and sharing, much CIHR-funded research data will remain hidden, inaccessible and unusable.

SUBMITTER: Read KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8580829 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a descriptive analysis.

Read Kevin B KB Ganshorn Heather H Rutley Sarah S Scott David R DR

CMAJ open 20211001 4

<h4>Background</h4>As Canada increases requirements for research data management and sharing, there is value in identifying how research data are shared and what has been done to make them findable and reusable. This study aimed to understand Canada's data-sharing landscape by reviewing how data funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) are shared and comparing researchers' data-sharing practices to best practices for research data management and sharing.<h4>Methods</h4>We perf ...[more]

PMID: 34753787

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInvestigators applying for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding increasingly use promotional language (or hype) that has the potential to undermine objective evaluation. Whether or not the same investigators use hype in subsequent research reports has yet to be investigated.ObjectiveTo assess changes in the use of hype in journal abstracts reporting research funded by the NIH and to compare those trends with previously reported trends in the associated NIH funding applications.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed trends (from 1985 to 2020) in the use of promotional adjectives in abstracts of journal articles reporting NIH-funded research, and then compared those trends with previously reported trends for the associated NIH funding applications. Articles included in analyses had abstracts available in PubMed.Main outcomes and measuresAbsolute change for the 139 adjective forms that have previously been identified as representing hype in NIH funding applications was measured as the difference in frequency between 1985 and 2020. Relative change was measured as the percentage change in frequency in 2020 relative to 1985, or the first year of occurrence. Consistency of change was measured by the rank order correlation (Kendall τ). Concordance between longitudinal trends in the journal abstracts and NIH funding applications was measured by the rank-order cross-correlation.ResultsIn a total of 2 394 480 journal abstracts, all 139 adjective forms were identified in 2 793 592 total occurrences. Among these adjectives, 133 increased in absolute frequency by 5335 words per million (wpm), with a mean (SD) relative increase of 1404% (2371%). The largest absolute increases were for novel (524 wpm), important (414 wpm), and key (378 wpm). The largest relative increases were for scalable (22 wpm [19 964%]), unmet (23 wpm [12 126%]), and tailored (40 wpm [8169%]). The mean (SD) correlation for all adjectives was 0.70 (0.30) with 95 adjectives showing a strong positive correlation (τ > 0.7; P < .001), 24 a moderate positive correlation (0.5 < τ < 0.7; P < .001), and 3 a moderate negative correlation (-0.5 < τ < -0.7; P < .001). The mean (SD) cross-correlation was 0.64 (0.19) with 61 of the 139 adjectives showing a strong positive cross-correlations (τ > 0.7; P < .001), 53 a moderate positive cross-correlations (0.5 < τ < 0.7; P < .001), and 3 a moderate negative cross-correlation (-0.7 < τ < -0.5; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this analysis of journal abstracts reporting NIH-funded research from 1985 to 2020, levels of promotional language were found to be increasing and trends were closely associated with previously reported trends in the related NIH funding applications. This suggests that increasing levels of salesmanship may in part be a downstream effect of salesmanship infused during earlier stages of the research cascade.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2008, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that studies it funds either in whole or in part are required to publish their results as open access (OA) within 12 months of publication using either online repositories and/or OA journals. Yet, there is evidence that authors are poorly compliant with this mandate. Specifically, there has been an apparent decrease in OA publication after 2015, which coincides with a change in the OA policy during the same year. One particular policy change that may have contributed to this decline was lifting the requirement that authors deposit their article in an OA repository immediately upon publication. We investigated the proportion of OA compliance of CIHR-funded studies in the period before and after the policy change of 2015 with manual confirmation of both CIHR funding and OA status.Methods and findingsWe identified CIHR-funded studies published between the years 2014 to 2017 using a comprehensive search in the Web of Science (WoS). We took a stratified random sample from all four years (i.e. 2014 to 2017), with 250 studies from each year. Two authors independently reviewed the final full-text publications retrieved from the journal web page to determine to confirm CIHR funding, as indicated in the acknowledgements or elsewhere in the paper. For each study, we also collected bibliometric data that included citation count and Altmetric attention score Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Fisher's exact test with relative risk (RR). Among the 851 receiving CIHR funding published from 2014 to 2017, the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA significantly decreased from 79.6% in 2014 to 70.3% in 2017 (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99, P = 0.028). When considering all four years, there was no significant difference in the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA in both 2014 and 2015 compared to both 2016 and 2017 (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.05, P = 0.493). Additionally, OA publications had significantly higher citation count (both in year of publication and in total) and higher attention scores (P<0.05).ConclusionsOverall, we found that there was a significant decrease in the proportion of CIHR funded studies published as OA from 2014 compared to 2017, though this difference did not persist when comparing both 2014-2015 to 2016-2017. The primary limitation was the reliance of self-reported data from authors on CIHR funding status. We posit that this decrease may be attributable to CIHR's OA policy change in 2015. Further exploration is warranted to both validate these studies using a larger dataset and, if valid, investigate the effects of potential interventions to improve the OA compliance, such as use of a CIHR publication database, and reinstatement of a policy for authors to immediately submit their findings to OA repositories upon publication.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the rapid growth of interest and diversity in applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to biomedical research, there are limited objective ways to characterize the potential for use of AI in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo examine what types of medical AI have the greatest estimated translational impact (ie, ability to lead to development that has measurable value for human health) potential.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, research grants related to AI awarded between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2020, were identified from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) award database. The text content for each award was entered into a Natural Language Processing (NLP) clustering algorithm. An NIH database was also used to extract citation data, including the number of citations and approximate potential to translate (APT) score for published articles associated with the granted awards to create proxies for translatability.ExposuresUnsupervised assignment of AI-related research awards to application topics using NLP.Main outcomes and measuresAnnualized citations per $1 million funding (ACOF) and average APT score for award-associated articles, grouped by application topic. The APT score is a machine-learning based metric created by the NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis that quantifies the likelihood of future citation by a clinical article.ResultsA total of 16 629 NIH awards related to AI were included in the analysis, and 75 applications of AI were identified. Total annual funding for AI grew from $17.4 million in 1985 to $1.43 billion in 2020. By average APT, interpersonal communication technologies (0.488; 95% CI, 0.472-0.504) and population genetics (0.463; 95% CI, 0.453-0.472) had the highest translatability; environmental health (ACOF, 1038) and applications focused on the electronic health record (ACOF, 489) also had high translatability. The category of applications related to biochemical analysis was found to have low translatability by both metrics (average APT, 0.393; 95% CI, 0.388-0.398; ACOF, 246).Conclusions and relevanceBased on this study's findings, data on grants from the NIH can apparently be used to identify and characterize medical applications of AI to understand changes in academic productivity, funding support, and potential for translational impact. This method may be extended to characterize other research domains.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a descriptive analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a descriptive analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets