Seek and you may (not) find: A multi-institutional analysis of where research data are shared

被引:1
|
作者
Johnston, Lisa R. [1 ]
Mohr, Alicia Hofelich [2 ]
Herndon, Joel [3 ]
Taylor, Shawna [4 ]
Carlson, Jake R. [5 ]
Ge, Lizhao [6 ]
Moore, Jennifer [7 ]
Petters, Jonathan [8 ]
Kozlowski, Wendy [9 ]
Vitale, Cynthia Hudson [10 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Data Acad Planning & Inst Res, Madison, WI USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Liberal Arts Technol & Innovat Serv, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Duke Univ, Duke Univ Lib, Ctr Data & Visualizat Sci, Durham, NC 27708 USA
[4] Assoc Res Lib, Washington, DC USA
[5] SUNNY Buffalo, Univ Buffalo, Buffalo, NY USA
[6] George Washington Univ, Milken Inst, Sch Publ Hlth, Washington, DC USA
[7] Washington Univ, Washington Univ St Louis, St Louis, MO USA
[8] Univ Lib, Data Serv, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA
[9] Cornell Univ Lib, Cornell Univ, Res Data & Open Scholarship, Ithaca, NY USA
[10] Assoc Res Lib, Washington, DC USA
来源
PLOS ONE | 2024年 / 19卷 / 04期
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0302426
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Research data sharing has become an expected component of scientific research and scholarly publishing practice over the last few decades, due in part to requirements for federally funded research. As part of a larger effort to better understand the workflows and costs of public access to research data, this project conducted a high-level analysis of where academic research data is most frequently shared. To do this, we leveraged the DataCite and Crossref application programming interfaces (APIs) in search of Publisher field elements demonstrating which data repositories were utilized by researchers from six academic research institutions between 2012-2022. In addition, we also ran a preliminary analysis of the quality of the metadata associated with these published datasets, comparing the extent to which information was missing from metadata fields deemed important for public access to research data. Results show that the top 10 publishers accounted for 89.0% to 99.8% of the datasets connected with the institutions in our study. Known data repositories, including institutional data repositories hosted by those institutions, were initially lacking from our sample due to varying metadata standards and practices. We conclude that the metadata quality landscape for published research datasets is uneven; key information, such as author affiliation, is often incomplete or missing from source data repositories and aggregators. To enhance the findability, interoperability, accessibility, and reusability (FAIRness) of research data, we provide a set of concrete recommendations that repositories and data authors can take to improve scholarly metadata associated with shared datasets.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Pathways to Undergraduate Research Experiences: a Multi-Institutional Study
    Mahatmya D.
    Morrison J.
    Jones R.M.
    Garner P.W.
    Davis S.N.
    Manske J.
    Berner N.
    Johnson A.
    Ditty J.
    [J]. Innovative Higher Education, 2017, 42 (5-6) : 491 - 504
  • [22] Identity and access management in multi-institutional medical research
    Gruschka, N.
    Lo Iacono, L.
    Rajasekaran, H.
    [J]. ELEKTROTECHNIK UND INFORMATIONSTECHNIK, 2010, 127 (05): : 143 - 150
  • [23] Data management, documentation and analysis systems in radiation oncology: a multi-institutional survey
    Kerstin A. Kessel
    Stephanie E. Combs
    [J]. Radiation Oncology, 10
  • [24] Data management, documentation and analysis systems in radiation oncology: a multi-institutional survey
    Kessel, Kerstin A.
    Combs, Stephanie E.
    [J]. RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2015, 10
  • [25] Opportunities and Considerations for Multi-institutional Clinical Trials Research
    Deye, J.
    Ibbott, G.
    Michalski, J.
    Tucker, S.
    Xiao, Y.
    Deasy, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06) : 3431 - +
  • [26] Internet based multi-institutional prostate research system
    不详
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2005, 4 (03) : 72 - 72
  • [27] Laparoscopic lymphocelectomy: A multi-institutional analysis - Reply
    Hsu, THS
    Gill, IS
    Grune, MT
    Andersen, R
    Eckhoff, D
    Goldfarb, DA
    Gruessner, R
    Hodge, EE
    Munch, LC
    Nghiem, DD
    Nye, A
    Reckard, CR
    Shaver, T
    Stratta, RJ
    Taylor, RJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 163 (04): : 1099 - 1099
  • [28] Laparoscopic lymphocelectomy: A multi-institutional analysis - Comment
    Novicki, DE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 163 (04): : 1098 - 1099
  • [29] A multi-institutional analysis of prehospital tourniquet use
    Schroll, Rebecca
    Smith, Alison
    McSwain, Norman E., Jr.
    Myers, John
    Rocchi, Kristin
    Inaba, Kenji
    Siboni, Stefano
    Vercruysse, Gary A.
    Ibrahim-zada, Irada
    Sperry, Jason L.
    Martin-Gill, Christian
    Cannon, Jeremy W.
    Holland, Seth R.
    Schreiber, Martin A.
    Lape, Diane
    Eastman, Alexander L.
    Stebbins, Cari S.
    Ferrada, Paula
    Han, Jinfeng
    Meade, Peter
    Duchesne, Juan C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND ACUTE CARE SURGERY, 2015, 79 (01): : 10 - 14
  • [30] Robotic partial nephrectomy: A multi-institutional analysis
    Rogers C.G.
    Menon M.
    Weise E.S.
    Gettman M.T.
    Frank I.
    Shephard D.L.
    Abrahams H.M.
    Green J.M.
    Savatta D.J.
    Bhayani S.B.
    [J]. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2008, 2 (3) : 141 - 143