InfoDoc MicroVeille

Mots-clefs: data sharing Afficher/masquer les discussions | Raccourcis clavier

• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 28 April 2013 à 18 h 19 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data reuse ( 10 ), data sharing, scientific data ( 28 ), scientific practices ( 17 )   

  Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions :

  « Background : Scientific research in the 21st century is more data intensive and collaborative than in the past. It is important to study the data practices of researchers – data accessibility, discovery, re-use, preservation and, particularly, data sharing. Data sharing is a valuable part of the scientific method allowing for verification of results and extending research from prior results.
  Methodology/Principal Findings : A total of 1329 scientists participated in this survey exploring current data sharing practices and perceptions of the barriers and enablers of data sharing. Scientists do not make their data electronically available to others for various reasons, including insufficient time and lack of funding. Most respondents are satisfied with their current processes for the initial and short-term parts of the data or research lifecycle (collecting their research data; searching for, describing or cataloging, analyzing, and short-term storage of their data) but are not satisfied with long-term data preservation. Many organizations do not provide support to their researchers for data management both in the short- and long-term. If certain conditions are met (such as formal citation and sharing reprints) respondents agree they are willing to share their data. There are also significant differences and approaches in data management practices based on primary funding agency, subject discipline, age, work focus, and world region.
  Conclusions/Significance : Barriers to effective data sharing and preservation are deeply rooted in the practices and culture of the research process as well as the researchers themselves. New mandates for data management plans from NSF and other federal agencies and world-wide attention to the need to share and preserve data could lead to changes. Large scale programs, such as the NSF-sponsored DataNET (including projects like DataONE) will both bring attention and resources to the issue and make it easier for scientists to apply sound data management principles. »

  URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021101

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 23 April 2013 à 18 h 15 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data reuse ( 10 ), data sharing, Knowledge management ( 5 ), research data ( 20 )   

  Common Errors in Ecological Data Sharing :

  « Objectives: (1) to identify common errors in data organization and metadata completeness that would preclude a “reader” from being able to interpret and re-use the data for a new purpose; and (2) to develop a set of best practices derived from these common errors that would guide researchers in creating more usable data products that could be readily shared, interpreted, and used.
  Methods: We used directed qualitative content analysis to assess and categorize data and metadata errors identified by peer reviewers of data papers published in the Ecological Society of America’s (ESA) Ecological Archives. Descriptive statistics provided the relative frequency of the errors identified during the peer review process.
  Results: There were seven overarching error categories: Collection & Organization, Assure, Description, Preserve, Discover, Integrate, and Analyze/Visualize. These categories represent errors researchers regularly make at each stage of the Data Life Cycle. Collection & Organization and Description errors were some of the most common errors, both of which occurred in over 90% of the papers.
  Conclusions: Publishing data for sharing and reuse is error prone, and each stage of the Data Life Cycle presents opportunities for mistakes. The most common errors occurred when the researcher did not provide adequate metadata to enable others to interpret and potentially re-use the data. Fortunately, there are ways to minimize these mistakes through carefully recording all details about study context, data collection, QA/ QC, and analytical procedures from the beginning of a research project and then including this descriptive information in the metadata. »

  URL : http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol2/iss2/1/

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 18 January 2013 à 21 h 59 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data sharing, knowledge sharing ( 17 ), openness ( 16 ), scientific data ( 28 )   

  What should be the data sharing policy of cognitive science? :

  « There is a growing chorus of voices in the scientific community calling for greater openness in the sharing of raw data that leads to a publication. In this commentary, we discuss the merits of sharing, common concerns that are raised, and practical issues that arise in developing a sharing policy. We suggest that the cognitive science community discuss the topic and establish a data sharing policy. »

  URL : http://lpl.psy.ohio-state.edu/documents/PT.pdf

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 14 January 2013 à 21 h 29 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data sharing, knowledge sharing ( 17 ), Science 2.0 ( 2 ), science 3.0, scientific practices ( 17 )   

  Science 3.0: Corrections to the « Science 2.0″ paradigm :

  « The concept of « Science 2.0″ was introduced almost a decade ago to describe the new generation of online-based tools for researchers allowing easier data sharing, collaboration and publishing. Although technically sound, the concept still does not work as expected. Here we provide a systematic line of arguments to modify the concept of Science 2.0, making it more consistent with the spirit and traditions of science and Internet. Our first correction to the Science 2.0 paradigm concerns the open-access publication models charging fees to the authors. As discussed elsewhere, we reiterate that the monopoly of such publishing models increases biases and inequalities in the representation of scientific ideas based on the author’s income. Our second correction concerns post-publication comments online, which are all essentially non-anonymous in the current Science 2.0 paradigm. We conclude that scientific post-publication discussions require special anonymization systems. We further analyze the reasons of the failure of the current post-publication peer-review models and suggest what needs to be changed in « Science 3.0″ to convert Internet into a large « journal club ». »

  URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2522

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 23 February 2012 à 18 h 41 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: computer science, data sharing, open source software ( 20 ), scientific communication ( 185 )   

  The case for open computer programs :

  « Scientific communication relies on evidence that cannot be entirely included in publications, but the rise of computational science has added a new layer of inaccessibility. Although it is now accepted that data should be made available on request, the current regulations regarding the availability of software are inconsistent. We argue that, with some exceptions, anything less than the release of source programs is intolerable for results that depend on computation. The vagaries of hardware, software and natural language will always ensure that exact reproducibility remains uncertain, but withholding code increases the chances that efforts to reproduce results will fail. »

  URL : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 1 January 2012 à 12 h 15 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data sharing, knowledge sharing ( 17 ), open data ( 53 ), research data ( 20 ), scientific data ( 28 )   

  Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results :

  « Background : The widespread reluctance to share published research data is often hypothesized to be due to the authors’ fear that reanalysis may expose errors in their work or may produce conclusions that contradict their own. However, these hypotheses have not previously been studied systematically.

  Methods and Findings : We related the reluctance to share research data for reanalysis to 1148 statistically significant results reported in 49 papers published in two major psychology journals. We found the reluctance to share data to be associated with weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect) and a higher prevalence of apparent errors in the reporting of statistical results. The unwillingness to share data was particularly clear when reporting errors had a bearing on statistical significance.

  Conclusions : Our findings on the basis of psychological papers suggest that statistical results are particularly hard to verify when reanalysis is more likely to lead to contrasting conclusions. This highlights the importance of establishing mandatory data archiving policies. »

  URL : http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026828
  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

  

  Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to… « InfoDoc ... | research data management | Scoop.it is discussing. Afficher/masquer les commentaires

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 18 December 2011 à 18 h 48 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data sharing, internet age ( 2 ), Knowledge Economy ( 6 )   

  Sharing and the Creative Economy: Culture in the Internet Age :

  « In the past fifteen years, file sharing of digital cultural works between individuals has been at the center of a number of debates on the future of culture itself. To some, sharing constitutes piracy, to be fought against and eradicated. Others see it as unavoidable, and table proposals to compensate for its harmful effects. Meanwhile, little progress has been made towards addressing the real challenges facing culture in a digital world. Sharing starts from a radically different viewpoint, namely that the non-market sharing of digital works is both legitimate and useful. It supports this premise with empirical research, demonstrating that non-market sharing leads to more diversity in the attention given to various works. Taking stock of what we have learnt about the cultural economy in recent years, Sharing sets out the conditions necessary for valuable cultural functions to remain sustainable in this context. »
  URL : http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/docs/internet_creation_1-3.pdf
  URL : http://www.amazon.com/Sharing-Culture-Economy-Internet-Age/dp/9089643850

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 1 December 2011 à 21 h 26 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: creative commons ( 19 ), data sharing, europeana ( 2 ), Licensing ( 2 ), Non-profit, open access ( 548 ), open content ( 4 ), Open educational resources ( 6 ), Software Licenses   

  Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information :

  « The Creative Commons (CC) licenses are a suite of copyright-based licenses defining terms for the distribution and re-use of creative works. CC provides licenses for different use cases and includes open content licenses such as the Attribution license (CC BY, used by many Open Access scientific publishers) and the Attribution Share Alike license (CC BY-SA, used by Wikipedia, for example). However, the license suite also contains non-free and non-open licenses like those containing a “non-commercial” (NC) condition. Although many people identify “non-commercial” with “non-profit”, detailed analysis reveals that significant differences exist and that the license may impose some unexpected re-use limitations on works thus licensed. After providing background information on the concepts of Creative Commons licenses in general, this contribution focuses on the NC condition, its advantages, disadvantages and appropriate scope. Specifically, it contributes material towards a risk analysis for potential re-users of NC-licensed works. »

  URL : http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information
  doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2189

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 17 November 2011 à 9 h 15 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: citation impact ( 3 ), citations ( 16 ), data sharing, open data ( 53 ), scientific data ( 28 )   

  Linking to Data – Effect on Citation Rates in Astronomy :

  « Is there a difference in citation rates between articles that were published with links to data and articles that were not? Besides being interesting from a purely academic point of view, this question is also highly relevant for the process of furthering science. Data sharing not only helps the process of verification of claims, but also the discovery of new findings in archival data. However, linking to data still is a far cry away from being a « practice », especially where it comes to authors providing these links during the writing and submission process. You need to have both a willingness and a publication mechanism in order to create such a practice. Showing that articles with links to data get higher citation rates might increase the willingness of scientists to take the extra steps of linking data sources to their publications. In this presentation we will show this is indeed the case: articles with links to data result in higher citation rates than articles without such links. The ADS is funded by NASA Grant NNX09AB39G. »

  URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618

  

   
• 

  Hans Dillaerts le 3 November 2011 à 18 h 52 min Permalien
  Mots-clefs: data sharing, knowledge sharing ( 17 ), open access ( 548 ), open access benefits ( 7 ), scientific communication ( 185 ), scientific data ( 28 ), scientific pratices ( 67 )   

  Report on Integration of Data and Publications :

  « Scholarly communication is the foundation of modern research where empirical evidence is interpreted and communicated as published hypothesis driven research. Many current and recent reports highlight the impact of advancing technology on modern research and consequences this has on scholarly communication. As part of the ODE project this report sought to coalesce current though and opinions from numerous and diverse sources to reveal opportunities for supporting a more connected and integrated scholarly record. Four perspectives were considered, those of the Researcher who generates or reuses primary data, Publishers who provide the mechanisms to communicate research activities and Libraries & Data enters who maintain and preserve the evidence that underpins scholarly communication and the published record. This report finds the landscape fragmented and complex where competing interests can sometimes confuse and confound requirements, needs and expectations. Equally the report identifies clear opportunity for all stakeholders to directly enable a more joined up and vital scholarly record of modern research. »

  URL : http://www.libereurope.eu/sites/default/files/ODE-ReportOnIntegrationOfDataAndPublication.pdf