23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers with data sharing and reuse: A meta-synthesis

      research-article
      1 , * , 2 , 3
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Funding agencies and research journals are increasingly demanding that researchers share their data in public repositories. Despite these requirements, researchers still withhold data, refuse to share, and deposit data that lacks annotation. We conducted a meta-synthesis to examine the views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers on data sharing and reuse of research data.

          Methods

          We searched the published and unpublished literature for studies on data sharing by researchers in academic institutions. Two independent reviewers screened citations and abstracts, then full-text articles. Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators. The abstracted data was read and reread in order to generate codes. Key concepts were identified and thematic analysis was used for data synthesis.

          Results

          We reviewed 2005 records and included 45 studies along with 3 companion reports. The studies were published between 2003 and 2018 and most were conducted in North America (60%) or Europe (17%). The four major themes that emerged were data integrity, responsible conduct of research, feasibility of sharing data, and value of sharing data. Researchers lack time, resources, and skills to effectively share their data in public repositories. Data quality is affected by this, along with subjective decisions around what is considered to be worth sharing. Deficits in infrastructure also impede the availability of research data. Incentives for sharing data are lacking.

          Conclusion

          Researchers lack skills to share data in a manner that is efficient and effective. Improved infrastructure support would allow them to make data available quickly and seamlessly. The lack of incentives for sharing research data with regards to academic appointment, promotion, recognition, and rewards need to be addressed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The harvest plot: A method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions

          Background One attraction of meta-analysis is the forest plot, a compact overview of the essential data included in a systematic review and the overall 'result'. However, meta-analysis is not always suitable for synthesising evidence about the effects of interventions which may influence the wider determinants of health. As part of a systematic review of the effects of population-level tobacco control interventions on social inequalities in smoking, we designed a novel approach to synthesis intended to bring aspects of the graphical directness of a forest plot to bear on the problem of synthesising evidence from a complex and diverse group of studies. Methods We coded the included studies (n = 85) on two methodological dimensions (suitability of study design and quality of execution) and extracted data on effects stratified by up to six different dimensions of inequality (income, occupation, education, gender, race or ethnicity, and age), distinguishing between 'hard' (behavioural) and 'intermediate' (process or attitudinal) outcomes. Adopting a hypothesis-testing approach, we then assessed which of three competing hypotheses (positive social gradient, negative social gradient, or no gradient) was best supported by each study for each dimension of inequality. Results We plotted the results on a matrix ('harvest plot') for each category of intervention, weighting studies by the methodological criteria and distributing them between the competing hypotheses. These matrices formed part of the analytical process and helped to encapsulate the output, for example by drawing attention to the finding that increasing the price of tobacco products may be more effective in discouraging smoking among people with lower incomes and in lower occupational groups. Conclusion The harvest plot is a novel and useful method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of population-level interventions. It contributes to the challenge of making best use of all available evidence by incorporating all relevant data. The visual display assists both the process of synthesis and the assimilation of the findings. The method is suitable for adaptation to a variety of questions in evidence synthesis and may be particularly useful for systematic reviews addressing the broader type of research question which may be most relevant to policymakers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Classifying the findings in qualitative studies.

            A key task in conducting research integration studies is determining what features to account for in the research reports eligible for inclusion. In the course of a methodological project, the authors found a remarkable uniformity in the way findings were produced and presented, no matter what the stated or implied frame of reference or method. They describe a typology of findings, which they developed to bypass the discrepancy between method claims and the actual use of methods, and efforts to ascertain its utility and reliability. The authors propose that the findings in journal reports of qualitative studies in the health domain can be classified on a continuum of data transformation as no finding, topical survey, thematic survey, conceptual/thematic description, or interpretive explanation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              If We Share Data, Will Anyone Use Them? Data Sharing and Reuse in the Long Tail of Science and Technology

              Research on practices to share and reuse data will inform the design of infrastructure to support data collection, management, and discovery in the long tail of science and technology. These are research domains in which data tend to be local in character, minimally structured, and minimally documented. We report on a ten-year study of the Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. We found that CENS researchers are willing to share their data, but few are asked to do so, and in only a few domain areas do their funders or journals require them to deposit data. Few repositories exist to accept data in CENS research areas.. Data sharing tends to occur only through interpersonal exchanges. CENS researchers obtain data from repositories, and occasionally from registries and individuals, to provide context, calibration, or other forms of background for their studies. Neither CENS researchers nor those who request access to CENS data appear to use external data for primary research questions or for replication of studies. CENS researchers are willing to share data if they receive credit and retain first rights to publish their results. Practices of releasing, sharing, and reusing of data in CENS reaffirm the gift culture of scholarship, in which goods are bartered between trusted colleagues rather than treated as commodities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                27 February 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 2
                : e0229182
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ] Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ] MacOdrum Library, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9941-7129
                Article
                PONE-D-19-18302
                10.1371/journal.pone.0229182
                7046208
                32106224
                f6d4ff3c-3c27-4ebd-b743-218d5f153545
                © 2020 Perrier et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 9 July 2019
                : 2 February 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 21
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Research Validity
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Social Research
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Data Management
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Qualitative Studies
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Custom metadata
                The data are available from the Zenodo Repository, DOI: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3258850.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article