Limits...
Biomedical Data Sharing and Reuse: Attitudes and Practices of Clinical and Scientific Research Staff.

Federer LM, Lu YL, Joubert DJ, Welsh J, Brandys B - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Sharing data directly with other researchers was common, but most respondents did not have experience with uploading data to a repository.A number of significant differences exist between the attitudes and practices of clinical and basic science researchers, including their motivations for sharing, their reasons for not sharing, and the amount of work required to prepare their data.Given the varied practices of individual researchers and research communities, standardizing data practices like data citation and repository upload could make sharing and reuse easier.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: NIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

ABSTRACT

Background: Significant efforts are underway within the biomedical research community to encourage sharing and reuse of research data in order to enhance research reproducibility and enable scientific discovery. While some technological challenges do exist, many of the barriers to sharing and reuse are social in nature, arising from researchers' concerns about and attitudes toward sharing their data. In addition, clinical and basic science researchers face their own unique sets of challenges to sharing data within their communities. This study investigates these differences in experiences with and perceptions about sharing data, as well as barriers to sharing among clinical and basic science researchers.

Methods: Clinical and basic science researchers in the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Health were surveyed about their attitudes toward and experiences with sharing and reusing research data. Of 190 respondents to the survey, the 135 respondents who identified themselves as clinical or basic science researchers were included in this analysis. Odds ratio and Fisher's exact tests were the primary methods to examine potential relationships between variables. Worst-case scenario sensitivity tests were conducted when necessary.

Results and discussion: While most respondents considered data sharing and reuse important to their work, they generally rated their expertise as low. Sharing data directly with other researchers was common, but most respondents did not have experience with uploading data to a repository. A number of significant differences exist between the attitudes and practices of clinical and basic science researchers, including their motivations for sharing, their reasons for not sharing, and the amount of work required to prepare their data.

Conclusions: Even within the scope of biomedical research, addressing the unique concerns of diverse research communities is important to encouraging researchers to share and reuse data. Efforts at promoting data sharing and reuse should be aimed at solving not only technological problems, but also addressing researchers' concerns about sharing their data. Given the varied practices of individual researchers and research communities, standardizing data practices like data citation and repository upload could make sharing and reuse easier.

No MeSH data available.


Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding sharing data in a repository among clinical and scientific research staff.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4481309&req=5

pone.0129506.g002: Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding sharing data in a repository among clinical and scientific research staff.

Mentions: Respondents also rated relevance and expertise regarding depositing data in a repository (see Table 5). About half of the respondents rated uploading to data repositories as very highly (27%) or highly (24%) relevant to their work, but the majority considered their level of expertise very low (11%), low (34%), or medium (24%). Scientific staff ranked the relevance of sharing data in a repository more highly (median = 4, “high”) than they ranked their expertise in doing so (median = 3, “medium”). Clinical staff also ranked relevance more highly (median = 3, “medium”) than expertise (median = 2, “low”). Fig 2 demonstrates the relationship between expertise in and relevance of repository use among scientific and clinical research staff.


Biomedical Data Sharing and Reuse: Attitudes and Practices of Clinical and Scientific Research Staff.

Federer LM, Lu YL, Joubert DJ, Welsh J, Brandys B - PLoS ONE (2015)

Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding sharing data in a repository among clinical and scientific research staff.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4481309&req=5

pone.0129506.g002: Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding sharing data in a repository among clinical and scientific research staff.
Mentions: Respondents also rated relevance and expertise regarding depositing data in a repository (see Table 5). About half of the respondents rated uploading to data repositories as very highly (27%) or highly (24%) relevant to their work, but the majority considered their level of expertise very low (11%), low (34%), or medium (24%). Scientific staff ranked the relevance of sharing data in a repository more highly (median = 4, “high”) than they ranked their expertise in doing so (median = 3, “medium”). Clinical staff also ranked relevance more highly (median = 3, “medium”) than expertise (median = 2, “low”). Fig 2 demonstrates the relationship between expertise in and relevance of repository use among scientific and clinical research staff.

Bottom Line: Sharing data directly with other researchers was common, but most respondents did not have experience with uploading data to a repository.A number of significant differences exist between the attitudes and practices of clinical and basic science researchers, including their motivations for sharing, their reasons for not sharing, and the amount of work required to prepare their data.Given the varied practices of individual researchers and research communities, standardizing data practices like data citation and repository upload could make sharing and reuse easier.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: NIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

ABSTRACT

Background: Significant efforts are underway within the biomedical research community to encourage sharing and reuse of research data in order to enhance research reproducibility and enable scientific discovery. While some technological challenges do exist, many of the barriers to sharing and reuse are social in nature, arising from researchers' concerns about and attitudes toward sharing their data. In addition, clinical and basic science researchers face their own unique sets of challenges to sharing data within their communities. This study investigates these differences in experiences with and perceptions about sharing data, as well as barriers to sharing among clinical and basic science researchers.

Methods: Clinical and basic science researchers in the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Health were surveyed about their attitudes toward and experiences with sharing and reusing research data. Of 190 respondents to the survey, the 135 respondents who identified themselves as clinical or basic science researchers were included in this analysis. Odds ratio and Fisher's exact tests were the primary methods to examine potential relationships between variables. Worst-case scenario sensitivity tests were conducted when necessary.

Results and discussion: While most respondents considered data sharing and reuse important to their work, they generally rated their expertise as low. Sharing data directly with other researchers was common, but most respondents did not have experience with uploading data to a repository. A number of significant differences exist between the attitudes and practices of clinical and basic science researchers, including their motivations for sharing, their reasons for not sharing, and the amount of work required to prepare their data.

Conclusions: Even within the scope of biomedical research, addressing the unique concerns of diverse research communities is important to encouraging researchers to share and reuse data. Efforts at promoting data sharing and reuse should be aimed at solving not only technological problems, but also addressing researchers' concerns about sharing their data. Given the varied practices of individual researchers and research communities, standardizing data practices like data citation and repository upload could make sharing and reuse easier.

No MeSH data available.