Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Updated article of the week text.) |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Updated article of the week text.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File: | <div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Journal.pone.0147942.g002.PNG|240px]]</div> | ||
'''"[[Journal: | '''"[[Journal:Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia|Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia]]"''' | ||
Sharing of research data has begun to gain traction in many areas of the sciences in the past few years because of changing expectations from the scientific community, funding agencies, and academic journals. National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements for a data management plan (DMP) went into effect in 2011, with the intent of facilitating the dissemination and sharing of research results. Many projects that were funded during 2011 and 2012 should now have implemented the elements of the data management plans required for their grant proposals. In this paper we define "data sharing" and present a protocol for assessing whether data have been shared and how effective the sharing was. We then evaluate the data sharing practices of researchers funded by the NSF at Oregon State University in two ways: by attempting to discover project-level research data using the associated DMP as a starting point, and by examining data sharing associated with journal articles that acknowledge NSF support. Sharing at both the project level and the journal article level was not carried out in the majority of cases, and when sharing was accomplished, the shared data were often of questionable usability due to access, documentation, and formatting issues. We close the article by offering recommendations for how data producers, journal publishers, data repositories, and funding agencies can facilitate the process of sharing data in a meaningful way. ('''[[Journal:Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
''Recently featured'': | ''Recently featured'': | ||
: ▪ [[Journal:Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics|Principles and application of LIMS in mouse clinics]] | |||
: ▪ [[Journal:Multilevel classification of security concerns in cloud computing|Multilevel classification of security concerns in cloud computing]] | : ▪ [[Journal:Multilevel classification of security concerns in cloud computing|Multilevel classification of security concerns in cloud computing]] | ||
: ▪ [[Journal:Assessment of and response to data needs of clinical and translational science researchers and beyond|Assessment of and response to data needs of clinical and translational science researchers and beyond]] | : ▪ [[Journal:Assessment of and response to data needs of clinical and translational science researchers and beyond|Assessment of and response to data needs of clinical and translational science researchers and beyond]] | ||
Revision as of 16:00, 3 October 2016
"Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia"
Sharing of research data has begun to gain traction in many areas of the sciences in the past few years because of changing expectations from the scientific community, funding agencies, and academic journals. National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements for a data management plan (DMP) went into effect in 2011, with the intent of facilitating the dissemination and sharing of research results. Many projects that were funded during 2011 and 2012 should now have implemented the elements of the data management plans required for their grant proposals. In this paper we define "data sharing" and present a protocol for assessing whether data have been shared and how effective the sharing was. We then evaluate the data sharing practices of researchers funded by the NSF at Oregon State University in two ways: by attempting to discover project-level research data using the associated DMP as a starting point, and by examining data sharing associated with journal articles that acknowledge NSF support. Sharing at both the project level and the journal article level was not carried out in the majority of cases, and when sharing was accomplished, the shared data were often of questionable usability due to access, documentation, and formatting issues. We close the article by offering recommendations for how data producers, journal publishers, data repositories, and funding agencies can facilitate the process of sharing data in a meaningful way. (Full article...)
Recently featured:
