Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

  Kratz, John Ernest ^a   Strasser, Carly ^a  

^a University of California Office of the President   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; DOCUMENTATION; EXPERIMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SYSTEM; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REWARD; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; SOCIOLOGY; WRITING; ATTITUDE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PERSONNEL;

ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84923675511     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117619     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ceci SJ (1988) Scientists' attitudes toward data sharing. Science, Technology, & Human Values 13: 45-52. PMID: 25309997
2. Scaramozzino JM, Ramrez ML, McGaughey KJ (2012) A study of faculty data curation behaviors and attitudes at a teaching-centered university. College & Research Libraries 73: 349-365. doi: 10.5860/ crl-255
3. Bobrow M, Banks J, Burton P, Smith GD, Eeles R, et al. (2014) Establishing incentives and changing cultures to support data access. Technical report, Wellcome Trust. URL http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh-peda/documents/web-document/wtp056495.pdf.
4. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124. doi: 10. 1371/journal.pmed.0020124 PMID: 16060722
5. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10: 712-712. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1 PMID: 21892149
6. Mobley A, Linder SK, Braeuer R, Ellis LM, Zwelling L (2013) A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS ONE 8: e63221. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063221 PMID: 23691000
7. Zimmer C (2012) Rise in scientific journal retractions prompts calls for reform. The New York Times.
8. Editors (2013) How science goes wrong. The Economist.
9. Editors (2013) Trouble at the lab. The Economist.
10. Drew BT, Gazis R, Cabezas P, Swithers KS, Deng J, et al. (2013) Lost branches on the tree of life. PLoS Biol 11: e1001636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001636 PMID: 24019756
11. Collins FS, Tabak LA (2014) NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505: 612-613. doi: 10.1038/ 505612a PMID: 24482835
12. Piwowar HA, Vision TJ, Whitlock MC (2011) Data archiving is a good investment. Nature 473: 285-285. doi: 10.1038/473285a PMID: 21593852
13. Stewart G (2010) Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biology Letters 6: 78-81. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0546 PMID: 19776064
14. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2011) Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
15. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah MH, Ioannidis JPA (2011) Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 6: e24357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024357 PMID: 21915316
16. Vines TH, Albert AYK, Andrew RL, Dbarre F, Bock DG, et al. (2014) The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Current Biology 24: 94-97. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014 PMID: 24361065
17. Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, et al. (2011) Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6: e21101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021101 PMID: 21738610
18. Swan A, Brown S (2008) To share or not to share: Publication and quality assurance of research data outputs. a report commissioned by the research information network. Technical report, Research Information Network. URL http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16742.
19. Kim Y, Stanton JM (2012) Institutional and individual influences on scientists data sharing practices. Journal of Computational Science Education 3: 47-56.
20. Aydinoglu AU, Suomela T, Malone J (2014) Data management in astrobiology: Challenges and opportunities for an interdisciplinary community. Astrobiology 14: 451-461. doi: 10.1089/ast.2013.1127 PMID: 24840364
21. Enke N, Thessen A, Bach K, Bendix J, Seeger B, et al. (2012) The user's view on biodiversity data sharing investigating facts of acceptance and requirements to realize a sustainable use of research data. Ecological Informatics 11: 25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2012.03.004
22. Costello MJ (2009) Motivating online publication of data. BioScience 59: 418-427. doi: 10.1525/bio. 2009.59.5.9
23. Lawrence B, Jones C, Matthews B, Pepler S, Callaghan S (2011) Citation and peer review of data: Moving towards formal data publication. International Journal of Digital Curation 6: 4-37. doi: 10.2218/ijdc. v6i2.205
24. Atici L, Kansa SW, Lev-Tov J, Kansa EC (2012) Other peoples data: A demonstration of the imperative of publishing primary data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory: 1-19.
25. Newman P, Corke P (2009) Data papers peer reviewed publication of high quality data sets. The International Journal of Robotics Research 28: 587-587. doi: 10.1177/0278364909104283
26. Callaghan S, Murphy F, Tedds J, Allan R, Kunze J, et al. (2013) Processes and procedures for data publication: A case study in the geosciences. International Journal of Digital Curation 8: 193-203. doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.253
27. Allan R (2014) Geoscience data. Geoscience Data Journal 1: 1-1. doi: 10.1002/gdj3.3
28. Editors (2014) More bang for your byte. Scientific Data 1: 140010.
29. Weaver R, Duerr R (2012). Data acceptance plan for the NSIDC DAAC. URL http://nsidc.org/daac/ daac-data-accpetance-plan.pdf.
30. Kansa EC, Kansa SW (2013) We all know that a 14 is a sheep: Data publication and professionalism in archaeological communication. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1: 88-97. doi: 10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.1.1.0088
31. Callaghan S, Donegan S, Pepler S, Thorley M, Cunningham N, et al. (2012) Making data a first class scientific output: Data citation and publication by NERCs environmental data centres. International Journal of Digital Curation 7: 107-113. doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v7i1.218
32. Kratz J, Strasser C (2014) Data publication consensus and controversies [v3; ref status: indexed, http:// f1000r.es/4ja]. F1000Research 3.
33. Harley D, Acord SK, Earl-Novell S, Lawrence S, King CJ (2010) Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Technical report, The Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, CA. URL http://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 15x7385g.
34. Westra B (2010) Data services for the sciences: A needs assessment. Ariande.
35. Williams S (2013) Gathering feedback from early-career faculty: Speaking with and surveying agricultural faculty members about research data. Journal of eScience Librarianship 2. doi: 10.7191/jeslib. 2013.1048
36. Strasser C, Kunze J, Abrams S, Cruse P (2014) DataUp: A tool to help researchers describe and share tabular data [v2; ref status: approved 1, approved with reservations 1, http://f1000r.es/48u]. F1000Research 3.
37. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY, USA: Routledge Academic, 2 edition.
38. Kratz JE, Strasser CA (2014). Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data. URL http://dash.ucop.edu/xtf/view?docId=ucop/ark%2B%3Db5060%3Dd8rp4v/mrt-datacite.xml. Dataset.
39. (2011). Grant proposal guide chapter II proposal preparation instructions. NSF 11-1.
40. Obama B (2013). Making open and machine readable the new default for government information. URL http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable- new-default-government-. Executive Order 13642 of May 9, 2013.
41. (2003). Final NIH statement on sharing research data. URL http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noticefiles/NOT-OD-03-032.html. NOT-OD-03-032.
42. Blankman D, McGann J (2003). Ecological metadata language: Practical application for scientists. URL http://im.lternet.edu/sites/im.lternet.edu/files/emlHandbook.pdf.
43. Parsons MA, Duerr R, Minster JB (2010) Data citation and peer review. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 91: 297-298. doi: 10.1029/2010EO340001
44. FORCE11 Data Citation Synthesis Group (2014). Joint declaration of data citation principles. URL http://www.force11.org/node/4769.
45. Sieber PJE, Trumbo BE (1995) (not) giving credit where credit is due: Citation of data sets. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 11-20. doi: 10.1007/BF02628694
46. Mooney H (2011) Citing data sources in the social sciences: do authors do it? Learned Publishing 24: 99-108. doi: 10.1087/20110204
47. Mooney H, Newton M (2012) The anatomy of a data citation: Discovery, reuse, and credit. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1035
48. Agresti A (1992) A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Statistical Science 7: 131-153. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177011462
49. Szumilas M (2010) Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 19: 227-229. PMID: 20842279
50. Cramr H (1999) Mathematical methods of statistics, volume 9. Princeton university press.
51. Perez F, Granger BE (2007) IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Computing in Science & Engineering 9: 21-29. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53
52. McKinney W (2010) Data structures for statistical computing in python. In: Walt Svd, Millman J, editors, Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. pp. 51-56.
53. van der Walt S, Colbert SC, Varoquaux G (2011) The NumPy array: A structure for efficient numerical computation. Computing in Science & Engineering 13: 22-30. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37
54. Hunter JD (2007) Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering 9: 90-95. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
55. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G∗ power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods 39: 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 PMID: 17695343
56. Kratz J, Strasser C (2014). Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data. URL http:// dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13121. Software.