Skip to main content
G2P Knowledge Centre logo
Login or use OpenID
Need an account? Contact us
GEN2PHEN logo
  • Home
  • News
  • Events
  • Community
  • Data
  • About GEN2PHEN
Home

Abysmal state of data sharing: only *one* out of ten authors of published PLoS ONE papers was willing to supply original dataset on request

Contributed by:Gudmundur A Thorisson
Originally posted:28th September 2009: 11:14 am
Short URL:http://gen2phen.org/node/6646
Public document Public - anyone can view
Tweet

In the wake of the recent Nature special issue on data sharing, I saw Cameron Neylon's blog post on a study published in PLoS ONE last week[fn]Savage and Vickers. Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals. PLoS ONE (2009) vol. 4 (9) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007078[/fn] that I hadn't seen. I heartily agree with Cameron and the numerous commentators on FriendFeed here and here.  As the authors of the paper conclude, journal policies on data sharing clearly are not effective.

 

Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals

Caroline J. Savage, Andrew J. Vickers

Abstract

Background: Many journals now require authors share their data with other investigators, either by depositing the data in a public repository or making it freely available upon request. These policies are explicit, but remain largely untested. We sought to determine how well authors comply with such policies by requesting data from authors who had published in one of two journals with clear data sharing policies.

Methods and Findings: We requested data from ten investigators who had published in either PLoS Medicine or PLoS Clinical Trials. All responses were carefully documented. In the event that we were refused data, we reminded authors of the journal’s data sharing guidelines. If we did not receive a response to our initial request, a second request was made. Following the ten requests for raw data, three investigators did not respond, four authors responded and refused to share their data, two email addresses were no longer valid, and one author requested further details. A reminder of PLoS’s explicit requirement that authors share data did not change the reply from the four authors who initially refused. Only one author sent an original data set.

Conclusions: We received only one of ten raw data sets requested. This suggests that journal policies requiring data sharing do not lead to authors making their data sets available to independent investigators.

Tag & categorise
Tags: 
data sharing
  • data sharing
  • Login to post comments

Blogs

  • All Blogs

Bloggers

  • Adam Webb (8)
  • Administrator (5)
  • Gudmundur A Thorisson (27)
  • Rob Free (1)

Categories

  • authentication (2)
  • author identifier (1)
  • authorization (1)
  • BioScience (1)
  • contribution tracking (1)
  • data sharing (1)
  • data-sharing disease chordoma (1)
  • digital identity (4)
  • gov2.0 (1)
  • high-performance computing (1)
  •  
  • 1 of 3
  • ››
G2P Knowledge Centre is part of GEN2PHEN and funded by the Health Thematic Area of the Cooperation Programme of the European Commission within the VII Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

© GEN2PHEN 2011
Follow @gen2phen
  • Contact Us