Can Data Sharing Become the Path of Least Resistance?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001949

2016-01-26

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:In this month’s editorial, the PLOS Medicine editors note recent progress towards data sharing as the community norm in medical research and the barriers that remain.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Data sharing policies across health research globally: Cross‐sectional meta‐research study

Aidan C. Tan,Angela C. Webster,Sol Libesman,Zijing Yang,Rani R. Chand,Weber Liu,Talia Palacios,Kylie E. Hunter,Anna Lene Seidler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1757

2024-09-16

Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract:Background Data sharing improves the value, synthesis, and integrity of research, but rates are low. Data sharing might be improved if data sharing policies were prominent and actionable at every stage of research. We aimed to systematically describe the epidemiology of data sharing policies across the health research lifecycle. Methods This was a cross‐sectional analysis of the data sharing policies of the largest health research funders, all national ethics committees, all clinical trial registries, the highest‐impact medical journals, and all medical research data repositories. Stakeholders' official websites, online reports, and other records were reviewed up to May 2022. The strength and characteristics of their data sharing policies were assessed, including their policies on data sharing intention statements (a.k.a. data accessibility statements) and on data sharing specifically for coronavirus disease studies. Data were manually extracted in duplicate, and policies were descriptively analysed by their stakeholder and characteristics. Results Nine hundred and thirty‐five eligible stakeholders were identified: 110 funders, 124 ethics committees, 18 trial registries, 273 journals, and 410 data repositories. Data sharing was required by 41% (45/110) of funders, no ethics committees or trial registries, 19% (52/273) of journals and 6% (24/410) of data repositories. Among funder types, a higher proportion of private (63%, 35/55) and philanthropic (67%, 4/6) funders required data sharing than public funders (12%, 6/49). Conclusion Data sharing requirements, and even recommendations, were insufficient across health research. Where data sharing was required or recommended, there was limited guidance on implementation. We describe multiple pathways to improve the implementation of data sharing. Public funders and ethics committees are two stakeholders with particularly important untapped opportunities.

multidisciplinary sciences,mathematical & computational biology
Data sharing practices across knowledge domains: A dynamic examination of data availability statements in PLOS ONE publications

Chenyue Jiao,Kai Li,Zhichao Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221101830

2022-07-01

Journal of Information Science

Abstract:Journal of Information Science, Ahead of Print. As the importance of research data gradually grows in sciences, data sharing has come to be encouraged and even mandated by journals and funders in recent years. Following this trend, the data availability statement has been increasingly embraced by academic communities as a means of sharing research data as part of research articles. This article presents a quantitative study of which mechanisms and repositories are used to share research data in PLOS ONE articles. We offer a dynamic examination of this topic from the disciplinary and temporal perspectives based on all statements in English-language research articles published between 2014 and 2020 in the journal. We find a slow yet steady growth in the use of data repositories to share data over time, as opposed to sharing data in the article and/or supplementary materials; this indicates improved compliance with the journal's data sharing policies. We also find that multidisciplinary data repositories have been increasingly used over time, whereas some disciplinary repositories show a decreasing trend. Our findings can help academic publishers and funders to improve their data sharing policies and serve as an important baseline dataset for future studies on data sharing activities.

computer science, information systems,information science & library science
Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements

Lisa M. Federer,Christopher W. Belter,Douglas J. Joubert,Alicia Livinski,Ya-Ling Lu,Lissa N. Snyders,Holly Thompson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194768

IF: 3.7

2018-05-02

PLoS ONE

Abstract:A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing.

multidisciplinary sciences
Data Sharing: Convert Challenges into Opportunities

Ana Sofia Figueiredo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00327

IF: 5.2

2017-12-04

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Initiatives for sharing research data are opportunities to increase the pace of knowledge discovery and scientific progress. The reuse of research data has the potential to avoid the duplication of data sets and to bring new views from multiple analysis of the same data set. For example, the study of genomic variations associated with cancer profits from the universal collection of such data and helps in selecting the most appropriate therapy for a specific patient. However, data sharing poses challenges to the scientific community. These challenges are of ethical, cultural, legal, financial, or technical nature. This article reviews the impact that data sharing has in science and society and presents guidelines to improve the efficient sharing of research data.

public, environmental & occupational health
Practicing what we preach: developing a data sharing policy for the Journal of the Medical Library Association

Kevin B. Read,Liz Amos,Lisa M. Federer,Ayaba Logan,T. Scott Plutchak,Katherine G. Akers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.431

2018-04-05

Abstract:Providing access to the data underlying research results in published literature allows others to reproduce those results or analyze the data in new ways. Health sciences librarians and information professionals have long been advocates of data sharing. It is time for us to practice what we preach and share the data associated with our published research. This editorial describes the activity of a working group charged with developing a research data sharing policy for the Journal of the Medical Library Association.

information science & library science
Making the most of data sharing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02446-0

IF: 19.1

2024-06-12

Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract:Data repositories are the best way of sharing data both before and after publication, and Nature journals offer integrated data uploading at initial manuscript submission.

ecology,evolutionary biology
Exploring Barriers and Ethical Challenges to Medical Data Sharing: Perspectives from Chinese Researchers

Xiaojie Li,Yali Cong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01135-8

2024-01-01

BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:The impetus for policies promoting medical data sharing in China has gained significant traction. Nonetheless, the present legal and ethical framework governing the research use of medical data in China, is characterized by a more restrictive rather than permissive approach. The proportion of Chinese medical data being leveraged for scientific research still has room for improvement at present, indicating a significant untapped potential for advancing medical knowledge and improving healthcare outcomes. Building upon this research, we aim to delve deeper into the challenges researchers encounter in the sharing of medical data through focus group interviews. We conducted two focus group interviews study with researchers representing diverse disciplines to explore their perspectives on 21 June 2021 and 28 July 2021. A total of seventeen researchers willingly participated in this study, representing various professional backgrounds. Similar codes were merged. Research team discussions were also utilized to select interviewees’ statements that were regarded as typical or representative. The respondents demonstrated a strong understanding that medical data should not be disseminated arbitrarily, recognizing the importance of sharing data in compliance with laws. Through the interview, we found that although respondents stressed the importance of careful consideration regarding if and when this information can be responsibly released, none of the respondents raised the issue of necessitating consent from data subjects for the research use of medical data. This observation sharply contrasts with the stringent separate consent provisions for secondary data use outlined in the PIPL. The findings from the focus group studies shed light on researchers’ barriers and ethical challenges towards medical data sharing for scientific research, highlighting their deep concern for data security and cautious approach to sharing. The key objectives aimed at facilitating and enabling the reuse of medical data encompass enhancing interoperability, harmonizing data standards, improving data quality, safeguarding privacy, ensuring informed consent, incentivizing patients, and establishing explicit regulations pertaining to data access and utilization.
"You cannot collect data using your own resources and put It on open access": Perspectives from Africa about public health data-sharing

Evelyn Anane-Sarpong,Tenzin Wangmo,Claire Leonie Ward,Osman Sankoh,Marcel Tanner,Bernice Simone Elger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12159

Abstract:Data-sharing is a desired default in the field of public health and a source of much ethical deliberation. Sharing data potentially contributes the largest, most efficient source of scientific data, but is fraught with contextual challenges which make stakeholders, particularly those in under-resourced contexts hesitant or slow to share. Relatively little empirical research has engaged stakeholders in discussing the issue. This study sought to explore relevant experiences, contextual, and subjective explanations around the topic to provide a rich and detailed presentation of what it means to different stakeholders and contexts to share data and how that can guide practice and ethical guidance. A qualitative design involving interviews was undertaken with professionals working in public health institutions endowed with data (HDSS), ethics committees, and advisory agencies which help shape health research in Africa. A descriptive form of thematic analysis was used to summarize results into six key themes: (1) The role of HDSSs in research using public health data and data-sharing; (2) Ownership and funding are critical factors influencing data-sharing; (3) Other factors discourage data-sharing; (4) Promoting and sustaining data-sharing; (5) Ethical guidance structures; and (6) Establishing effective guidance. The themes reveal factors regarding the willingness or not to share and an intricate ethical system that current discourse could reflect. Many of the concerns resonate with the literature, but a whole other gamut of people and process issues; commitments, investments, careers, and the right ethical guidance are needed to realize a sustainable goal of reaching 'share' as a default.
When data sharing gets close to 100%: what ancient human DNA studies can teach the Open Science movement

Paolo Anagnostou,Marco Capocasa,Nicola Milia,Emanuele Sanna,Daniela Luzi,Giovanni Destro Bisol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.3682

2014-07-14

Populations and Evolution

Abstract:This study analyzes rates and ways of data sharing regarding mitochondrial, Y chromosomal and autosomal polymorphisms in a total of 162 papers on human ancient DNA published between 1988 and 2013. For the most part, data are available in such a way as to make their scrutiny and reuse possible. The estimated sharing rate is not far from totality (97.6% +/- 2.1%) and substantially higher than observed in other fields of genetic research (Evolutionary, Medical and Forensic Genetics). A questionnaire-based survey suggests that the authors awareness of the importance of openness and transparency for scientific progress is a fundamental factor for the achievement of such a high sharing rate. Most data were made available through body text, but the use of primary databases increased with the application of complete mitochondrial and next generation sequencing methods. Our study highlights three important aspects. First, we provide evidence that researchers motivations are as necessary as stakeholders policies and norms to achieve very high sharing rates. Second, careful analyses of the ways in which data are made available are an important first step to maximize data findability, accessibility, useability and preservation. Third and finally, the case of human ancient DNA studies demonstrates how Open Science can foster scientific advancements, showing that openness and transparency can help build rigorous and reliable scientific practices even in the presence of complex experimental challenges.
Announcing the Journal of the Medical Library Association’s data sharing policy

Katherine G. Akers,Kevin B. Read,Liz Amos,Lisa M. Federer,Ayaba Logan,T. Scott Plutchak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.801

2019-10-01

Abstract:As librarians are generally advocates of open access and data sharing, it is a bit surprising that peer-reviewed journals in the field of librarianship have been slow to adopt data sharing policies. Starting October 1, 2019, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is taking a step forward and implementing a firm data sharing policy to increase the rigor and reproducibility of published research, enable data reuse, and promote open science. This editorial explains the data sharing policy, describes how compliance with the policy will fit into the journal’s workflow, and provides further guidance for preparing for data sharing.

information science & library science
Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability

Christi J Guerrini,Mary A Majumder,Jill O Robinson,Robert Cook-Deegan,Matthew Blank,Juli Bollinger,Janis Geary,Amanda M Gutierrez,Maya Shrikant,Amy L McGuire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2023.1095119

2023-02-06

Abstract:As entities around the world invest in repositories and other infrastructure to facilitate health data sharing, scalable solutions to data sharing challenges are needed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 experts to explore views on potential issues and policy options related to health data sharing. In this Perspective, we describe and contextualize unconventional insights shared by our interviewees relevant to issues in five domains: data quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. These insights question a focus on granular quality metrics for gatekeeping; challenge enthusiasm for maximalist risk disclosure practices; call attention to power dynamics that potentially compromise the patient's voice; encourage faith in the sharing proclivities of new generations of scientists; and endorse accounting for personal disposition in the selection of long-term partners. We consider the merits of each insight with the broad goal of encouraging creative thinking to address data sharing challenges.
Evaluation of Data Sharing After Implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Data Sharing Statement Requirement

Valentin Danchev,Yan Min,John Borghi,Mike Baiocchi,John P. A. Ioannidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33972

2021-01-28

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: The benefits of responsible sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies are well recognized, but stakeholders often disagree on how to align those benefits with privacy risks, costs, and incentives for clinical trialists and sponsors. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required a data sharing statement (DSS) from submissions reporting clinical trials effective July 1, 2018. The required DSSs provide a window into current data sharing rates, practices, and norms among trialists and sponsors.Objective: To evaluate the implementation of the ICMJE DSS requirement in 3 leading medical journals: JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional study of clinical trial reports published as articles in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM between July 1, 2018, and April 4, 2020. Articles not eligible for DSS, including observational studies and letters or correspondence, were excluded. A MEDLINE/PubMed search identified 487 eligible clinical trials in JAMA (112 trials), Lancet (147 trials), and NEJM (228 trials). Two reviewers evaluated each of the 487 articles independently.Exposure: Publication of clinical trial reports in an ICMJE medical journal requiring a DSS.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes of the study were declared data availability and actual data availability in repositories. Other captured outcomes were data type, access, and conditions and reasons for data availability or unavailability. Associations with funding sources were examined.Results: A total of 334 of 487 articles (68.6%; 95% CI, 64%-73%) declared data sharing, with nonindustry NIH-funded trials exhibiting the highest rates of declared data sharing (89%; 95% CI, 80%-98%) and industry-funded trials the lowest (61%; 95% CI, 54%-68%). However, only 2 IPD sets (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-1.5%) were actually deidentified and publicly available as of April 10, 2020. The remaining were supposedly accessible via request to authors (143 of 334 articles [42.8%]), repository (89 of 334 articles [26.6%]), and company (78 of 334 articles [23.4%]). Among the 89 articles declaring that IPD would be stored in repositories, only 17 (19.1%) deposited data, mostly because of embargo and regulatory approval. Embargo was set in 47.3% of data-sharing articles (158 of 334), and in half of them the period exceeded 1 year or was unspecified.Conclusions and Relevance: Most trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM after the implementation of the ICMJE policy declared their intent to make clinical data available. However, a wide gap between declared and actual data sharing exists. To improve transparency and data reuse, journals should promote the use of unique pointers to data set location and standardized choices for embargo periods and access requirements.

medicine, general & internal
Questionable practices in data and code sharing policy in high-profile medical journal and research

Wei Li,Xuerong Liu,Qianyu Zhang,Liping Shi,Jing-Xuan Zhang,Xiaolin Zhang,Jia Luan,Yue Li,Ting Xu,Rong Zhang,Xiaodi Han,Jingyu Lei,Xueqian Wang,Yaozhi Wang,Hai Lan,Xiaohan Chen,Yi Wu,Yan Wu,Lei Xia,Haiping Liao,Chang Shen,Yang Yu,Xinyu Xu,Chao Deng,Pei Liu,Zhengzhi Feng,Chunji Huang,Zhiyi Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.29.24312818

2024-08-30

Abstract:Background The spurious and unavailable data/code sharing actions are crashing open medical sciences. In this study, we aimed to illustrate how high-profile medical journals are practically carried out their sharing policies and what questionable practices regarding data/code sharing are conducted by authors. Methods In this study, we appraised the policy on data/code availability of high-profile medical journals ranked at Q1 according to Clarivate Journal Citation Report (JCR 2021). Furthermore, we recruited post-publications published by four leading medical journals (i.e., The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet) from the issuing of data/code availability policy to December 2022 for the questionable practices in data/code sharing. The appraisal of papers was conducted by the Data/code Availability Statement Practice Evaluation Tool (DANCE), developed by systematically integrating mainstreaming open data/code guidelines. Findings We found that less than one-tenth journals (9.1%) mandated authors to share data/code, with an available statement. Among these journals, 70.6% (61.2%) did not consider censoring (restricting) spurious/invalid data/code sharing in publications. Furthermore, though journal impact factor could predict policy stringency on "offering availability statements"(p < .001), it failed to predict ones in "sharing data/code"(p = .73). For publications, even in leading medical journals (i.e., The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet), only 0.5% of the papers (16/3,191) fully complied with their public sharing statements for reaching reproducibility. Lack of availability statement, declining data/code sharing without reasons, and invalid repositories were leading questionable practices conducted by authors. Interpretation We clarified specific questionable actions of implementing and practicing the sharing policy both in journal and papers, which should be addressed not only by the supportive publication ecosystem but also by crediting authors for taking responsibility and maintaining scientific integrity in data/code sharing. Funding No funding.
Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

Daniel G Hamilton,Kyungwan Hong,Hannah Fraser,Anisa Rowhani-Farid,Fiona Fidler,Matthew J Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075767

2023-07-11

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract Objectives To synthesise research investigating data and code sharing in medicine and health to establish an accurate representation of the prevalence of sharing, how this frequency has changed over time, and what factors influence availability. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data. Data sources Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the preprint servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and MetaArXiv were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Forward citation searches were also performed on 30 August 2022. Review methods Meta-research studies that investigated data or code sharing across a sample of scientific articles presenting original medical and health research were identified. Two authors screened records, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted summary data from study reports when individual participant data could not be retrieved. Key outcomes of interest were the prevalence of statements that declared that data or code were publicly or privately available (declared availability) and the success rates of retrieving these products (actual availability). The associations between data and code availability and several factors (eg, journal policy, type of data, trial design, and human participants) were also examined. A two stage approach to meta-analysis of individual participant data was performed, with proportions and risk ratios pooled with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis. Results The review included 105 meta-research studies examining 2 121 580 articles across 31 specialties. Eligible studies examined a median of 195 primary articles (interquartile range 113-475), with a median publication year of 2015 (interquartile range 2012-2018). Only eight studies (8%) were classified as having a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a prevalence of declared and actual public data availability of 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 11%) and 2% (1% to 3%), respectively, between 2016 and 2021. For public code sharing, both the prevalence of declared and actual availability were estimated to be <0.5% since 2016. Meta-regressions indicated that only declared public data sharing prevalence estimates have increased over time. Compliance with mandatory data sharing policies ranged from 0% to 100% across journals and varied by type of data. In contrast, success in privately obtaining data and code from authors historically ranged between 0% and 37% and 0% and 23%, respectively. Conclusions The review found that public code sharing was persistently low across medical research. Declarations of data sharing were also low, increasing over time, but did not always correspond to actual sharing of data. The effectiveness of mandatory data sharing policies varied substantially by journal and type of data, a finding that might be informative for policy makers when designing policies and allocating resources to audit compliance. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7SX8U .

medicine, general & internal
Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines

Leho Tedersoo,Rainer Küngas,Ester Oras,Kajar Köster,Helen Eenmaa,Äli Leijen,Margus Pedaste,Marju Raju,Anastasiya Astapova,Heli Lukner,Karin Kogermann,Tuul Sepp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0

2021-07-27

Scientific Data

Abstract:Abstract Data sharing is one of the cornerstones of modern science that enables large-scale analyses and reproducibility. We evaluated data availability in research articles across nine disciplines in Nature and Science magazines and recorded corresponding authors’ concerns, requests and reasons for declining data sharing. Although data sharing has improved in the last decade and particularly in recent years, data availability and willingness to share data still differ greatly among disciplines. We observed that statements of data availability upon (reasonable) request are inefficient and should not be allowed by journals. To improve data sharing at the time of manuscript acceptance, researchers should be better motivated to release their data with real benefits such as recognition, or bonus points in grant and job applications. We recommend that data management costs should be covered by funding agencies; publicly available research data ought to be included in the evaluation of applications; and surveillance of data sharing should be enforced by both academic publishers and funders. These cross-discipline survey data are available from the plutoF repository.

multidisciplinary sciences
FAIR data sharing: An international perspective on why medical researchers are lagging behind

Linda Rainey,Jennifer E Lutomski,Mireille JM Broeders

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231171052

2023-05-07

Big Data & Society

Abstract:Big Data &Society, Volume 10, Issue 1, January-June 2023. FAIR data, that is, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable data, and Big Data intersect across issues related to data storage, access, and processing. The solution-oriented FAIR principles serve an integral role in improving Big Data; yet to date, the implementation of FAIR in multiple sectors has been fragmented. We conducted an exploratory analysis to identify incentives and barriers in creating FAIR data in the medical sector using digital concept mapping, a systematic mixed methods approach. Thirty-eight principal investigators (PIs) were recruited from North America, Europe, and Oceania. Our analysis revealed five clusters rated according to perceived relevance: 'Efficiency and collaboration' (rating 7.23), 'Privacy and security' (rating 7.18), 'Data management standards' (rating 7.16), 'Organization of services' (rating 6.98), and 'Ownership' (rating 6.28). All five clusters scored relatively high and within a narrow range (i.e., 6.28–7.69), implying that each cluster likely influences researchers' decision-making processes. PIs harbor a positive view of FAIR data sharing, as exemplified by participants highly prioritizing 'Efficiency and collaboration'. However, the other four clusters received only modestly lower ratings and largely contained barriers to FAIR data sharing. When viewed collectively, the benefits of efficiency and collaboration may not be sufficient in propelling FAIR data sharing. Arguably, until more of these reported barriers are addressed, widespread support of FAIR data will not translate into widespread practice. This research lays the preliminary foundation for conducting targeted large-scale research into FAIR data practices in the medical research community.

social sciences, interdisciplinary
Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies

David B. Resnik,Melissa Morales,Rachel Landrum,Min Shi,Jessica Minnier,Nicole A. Vasilevsky,Robin E. Champieux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1591277

2019-03-25

Accountability in Research

Abstract:Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. Our results showed that only a small percentage of journals require data sharing as a condition of publication, and that this varies across disciplines and Impact Factors. Both Impact Factors and discipline are associated with the presence of a data sharing policy. Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of specific data types into publicly available data banks; and refer to reproducibility as a rationale for sharing data. Biological science journals are more likely than social science and mathematics journals to require data sharing.
Challenges and opportunities in sharing microbiome data and analyses

Curtis Huttenhower,Robert D Finn,Alice Carolyn McHardy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-023-01484-x

Abstract:Microbiome data, metadata and analytical workflows have become 'big' in terms of volume and complexity. Although the infrastructure and technologies to share data have been established, the interdisciplinary and multi-omic nature of the field can make resources difficult to identify and use. Following best practices for data deposition requires substantial effort, with sometimes little obvious reward. Gaps remain where microbiome-specific resources for data sharing or reproducibility do not yet exist. We outline available best practices, challenges to their adoption and opportunities in data sharing in microbiome research. We showcase examples of best practices and advocate for their enforcement and incentivization for data sharing. This includes recognition of data curation and sharing endeavours by individuals, institutions, journals and funders. Opportunities for progress include enabling microbiome-specific databases to incorporate future methods for data analysis, integration and reuse.
Open Data and the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy

Tariq Rahaman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2023.2168103

2023-03-04

Medical Reference Services Quarterly

Abstract:As the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) new Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy is a large step toward shifting the culture of medical research toward a broader sharing of scientific data. Librarians in the health sciences support researchers by assisting with data management plans, research dissemination, abiding by publisher/grant requirements on data sharing, and suggesting recommended repositories for data preservation. This article will serve as a primer on open data, data sharing, the NIH's DMS Policy and its implications, and how librarians can support researchers in this landscape.
What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review

Anisa Rowhani-Farid,Michelle Allen,Adrian G. Barnett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9

2017-05-05

Research Integrity and Peer Review

Abstract:BackgroundThe foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing.MethodsA systematic review (registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6PZ5E) of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates. We were also interested in quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates.ResultsOnly one incentive (using open data badges) has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces (n = 85) out-weighed the number of article-testing strategies (n = 76), and the number of observational studies exceeded them both (n = 106).ConclusionsGiven that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing.

Can Data Sharing Become the Path of Least Resistance?

Data sharing policies across health research globally: Cross‐sectional meta‐research study

Data sharing practices across knowledge domains: A dynamic examination of data availability statements in PLOS ONE publications

Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements

Data Sharing: Convert Challenges into Opportunities

Practicing what we preach: developing a data sharing policy for the Journal of the Medical Library Association

Making the most of data sharing

Exploring Barriers and Ethical Challenges to Medical Data Sharing: Perspectives from Chinese Researchers

"You cannot collect data using your own resources and put It on open access": Perspectives from Africa about public health data-sharing

When data sharing gets close to 100%: what ancient human DNA studies can teach the Open Science movement

Announcing the Journal of the Medical Library Association’s data sharing policy

Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability

Evaluation of Data Sharing After Implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Data Sharing Statement Requirement

Questionable practices in data and code sharing policy in high-profile medical journal and research

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines

FAIR data sharing: An international perspective on why medical researchers are lagging behind

Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies

Challenges and opportunities in sharing microbiome data and analyses

Open Data and the 2023 NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy

What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review