Étiquette : research data

Catégories
EN

Why Won’t They Just Adopt Good Research Data Management Practices? An Exploration of Research Teams and Librarians’ Role in Facilitating RDM Adoption

Authors: Clara Llebot, Hannah Gascho Rempe

Adoption of good research data management practices is increasingly important for research teams. Despite the work the research community has done to define best data management practices, these practices are still difficult to adopt for many research teams.

Universities all around the world have been offering Research Data Services to help their research groups, and libraries are usually an important part of these services. A better understanding of the pressures and factors that affect research teams may help librarians serve these groups more effectively.

The social interactions between the members of a research team are a key element that influences the likelihood of a research group successfully adopting best practices in data management.

In this article we adapt the Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) to explain the variables that can influence whether new and better, data management practices will be adopted by a research group.

We describe six moderating variables: size of the team, disciplinary culture, group culture and leadership, team heterogeneity, funder, and dataset decisions.

We also develop three research group personas as a way of navigating the UTAUT model, and as a tool Research Data Services practitioners can use to target interactions between librarians and research groups to make them more effective.

URL : Why Won’t They Just Adopt Good Research Data Management Practices? An Exploration of Research Teams and Librarians’ Role in Facilitating RDM Adoption

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2321

Catégories
EN

A survey of researchers’ needs and priorities for data sharing

Authors : Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, James Harney, Lauren Cadwallader

PLOS has long supported Open Science. One of the ways in which we do so is via our stringent data availability policy established in 2014. Despite this policy, and more data sharing policies being introduced by other organizations, best practices for data sharing are adopted by a minority of researchers in their publications. Problems with effective research data sharing persist and these problems have been quantified by previous research as a lack of time, resources, incentives, and/or skills to share data.

In this study we built on this research by investigating the importance of tasks associated with data sharing, and researchers’ satisfaction with their ability to complete these tasks. By investigating these factors we aimed to better understand opportunities for new or improved solutions for sharing data.

In May-June 2020 we surveyed researchers from Europe and North America to rate tasks associated with data sharing on (i) their importance and (ii) their satisfaction with their ability to complete them. We received 728 completed and 667 partial responses. We calculated mean importance and satisfaction scores to highlight potential opportunities for new solutions to and compare different cohorts.

Tasks relating to research impact, funder compliance, and credit had the highest importance scores. 52% of respondents reuse research data but the average satisfaction score for obtaining data for reuse was relatively low. Tasks associated with sharing data were rated somewhat important and respondents were reasonably well satisfied in their ability to accomplish them. Notably, this included tasks associated with best data sharing practice, such as use of data repositories. However, the most common method for sharing data was in fact via supplemental files with articles, which is not considered to be best practice.

We presume that researchers are unlikely to seek new solutions to a problem or task that they are satisfied in their ability to accomplish, even if many do not attempt this task. This implies there are few opportunities for new solutions or tools to meet these researcher needs. Publishers can likely meet these needs for data sharing by working to seamlessly integrate existing solutions that reduce the effort or behaviour change involved in some tasks, and focusing on advocacy and education around the benefits of sharing data.

There may however be opportunities – unmet researcher needs – in relation to better supporting data reuse, which could be met in part by strengthening data sharing policies of journals and publishers, and improving the discoverability of data associated with published articles.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/njr5u

Catégories
FR

Ouverture des données de recherche dans le domaine académique suisse : outils pour le choix d’une stratégie institutionnelle en matière de dépôt de données

Auteur/Author : Marielle Guirlet

Le contexte actuel de l’Open Science se traduit par des exigences d’ouverture des données de recherche. Le dépôt de données est un instrument crucial pour partager publiquement ces données.

Néanmoins, l’offre actuelle pléthorique et très diverse rend la sélection du dépôt difficile pour les chercheurs et les chercheuses. Pour les aider, leurs institutions d’affiliation émettent des recommandations pour le choix du meilleur dépôt. Elles proposent parfois aussi leur propre dépôt de données ou envisagent de le créer.

Cette étude, basée sur un travail de Master en sciences de l’information, s’intéresse à la démarche que les institutions académiques suisses peuvent suivre pour définir leur stratégie de soutien aux chercheurs et aux chercheuses en termes de dépôt.

Elle identifie aussi les informations qui vont aider ces institutions à choisir entre orienter ces chercheurs et ces chercheuses vers un dépôt existant (et lequel) et créer un nouveau dépôt, et aux spécifications que ce dépôt doit remplir.

Après avoir défini les concepts des données de recherche et des dépôts ouverts, les fonctionnalités, les outils et les services nécessaires à un dépôt pour mettre en œuvre le partage public de données sont discutés.

A partir des critères utilisés par la certification CoreTrustSeal pour évaluer la qualité d’un dépôt, et en tenant compte de ces fonctionnalités, de ces outils et ces services, un modèle de description d’un dépôt de données de recherche ouvertes est élaboré. Ce modèle peut être utilisé pour l’évaluation d’un dépôt existant ou pour la conception d’un nouveau dépôt.

Les stratégies de neuf institutions académiques suisses en matière de dépôt de données de recherche, dépôts utilisés et dépôts recommandés, sont analysées. Des recommandations sont formulées, sur la base des bonnes pratiques observées.

Des outils développés pour le choix de la meilleure stratégie en termes de dépôt de données de recherche ouvertes sont alors présentés. Un vade-mecum se présentant comme une liste de questions permet de collecter certaines informations utiles.

Un guide décisionnel accompagne l’institution dans sa réflexion et lui permet de choisir sa stratégie de façon éclairée, avec les informations collectées précédemment. Une fois cette stratégie choisie, des informations complémentaires et des recommandations sont disponibles pour sa mise en pratique.

Une version prototype de ces outils pour navigateur Internet est aussi présentée. Elle est adaptable à une évolution du contexte et transposable à d’autres pays.

URL : http://www.ressi.ch/num21/article182

Catégories
EN

Repository Approaches to Improving the Quality of Shared Data and Code

Authors : Ana Trisovic, Katherine Mika, Ceilyn Boyd, Sebastian Feger, Mercè Crosas

Sharing data and code for reuse has become increasingly important in scientific work over the past decade. However, in practice, shared data and code may be unusable, or published results obtained from them may be irreproducible.

Data repository features and services contribute significantly to the quality, longevity, and reusability of datasets.

This paper presents a combination of original and secondary data analysis studies focusing on computational reproducibility, data curation, and gamified design elements that can be employed to indicate and improve the quality of shared data and code.

The findings of these studies are sorted into three approaches that can be valuable to data repositories, archives, and other research dissemination platforms.

URL : Repository Approaches to Improving the Quality of Shared Data and Code

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/data6020015

Catégories
EN

From Conceptualization to Implementation: FAIR Assessment of Research Data Objects

Authors: Anusuriya Devaraju, Mustapha Mokrane, Linas Cepinskas, Robert Huber, Patricia Herterich, Jerry de Vries, Vesa Akerman, Hervé L’Hours, Joy Davidson, Michael Diepenbroek

Funders and policy makers have strongly recommended the uptake of the FAIR principles in scientific data management. Several initiatives are working on the implementation of the principles and standardized applications to systematically evaluate data FAIRness.

This paper presents practical solutions, namely metrics and tools, developed by the FAIRsFAIR project to pilot the FAIR assessment of research data objects in trustworthy data repositories. The metrics are mainly built on the indicators developed by the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group.

The tools’ design and evaluation followed an iterative process. We present two applications of the metrics: an awareness-raising self-assessment tool and an automated FAIR data assessment tool.

Initial results of testing the tools with researchers and data repositories are discussed, and future improvements suggested including the next steps to enable FAIR data assessment in the broader research data ecosystem.

URL : From Conceptualization to Implementation: FAIR Assessment of Research Data Objects

DOI : http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-004

Catégories
EN

An overview of biomedical platforms for managing research data

Authors : Vivek Navale, Denis von Kaeppler, Matthew McAuliffe

Biomedical platforms provide the hardware and software to securely ingest, process, validate, curate, store, and share data. Many large-scale biomedical platforms use secure cloud computing technology for analyzing, integrating, and storing phenotypic, clinical, and genomic data. Several web-based platforms are available for researchers to access services and tools for biomedical research.

The use of bio-containers can facilitate the integration of bioinformatics software with various data analysis pipelines. Adoption of Common Data Models, Common Data Elements, and Ontologies can increase the likelihood of data reuse. Managing biomedical Big Data will require the development of strategies that can efficiently leverage public cloud computing resources.

The use of the research community developed standards for data collection can foster the development of machine learning methods for data processing and analysis. Increasingly platforms will need to support the integration of data from multiple disease area research.

URL : An overview of biomedical platforms for managing research data

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42488-020-00040-0

Catégories
EN

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

Authors : Valentin Danchev, Yan Min, John Borghi, Mike Baiocchi, John P. A. Ioann

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.

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

DOI :10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33972