You are a researcher and you are working with data? Great!
This short, anonymous poll- targeted at researchers- aims to characterise the range of research data management tools that are used across domains and regions. It is being conducted by Research Data Alliance (RDA) Long Tail of Research Data Interest Group.
The poll will be open from June 15 to July 31, 2015 and is available on https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TVQ7RY6.
It is only one-page long and will take less that 5 minutes to complete.
In 2012, an estimated 114.8 billion $ in the US were spent on life sciences research. Roughly half of it is spent on preclinical research, with government sources providing the majority of funding – approximatly 38 billion US$.
Now, three researchers calculate the costs of irreproducible research in preclinical research near 28 billion $ – only for the United States alone. That is the conclusion of a study published in PLoS Biology a few days ago.
In the opinion of the study’s authors, the giant amount of 28 billion $ accumulates, because low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and contribute to both delays and costs of therapeutic drug development.
Yesterday, the German council of Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat) published a 54-page position paper on scientific integrity (unfortunately in German only). In a press release the scientific body stated:
“Prosperity and development of modern societies today depend to a large extent on the quality and progress of scientific knowledge. Therefore it is important that the public can trust in the ethical and quality standards of the scientific community. Cases of fraud and misconduct – particularly major fraud and plagiarism scandals – undermine that trust. In response to such cases of fraud and loss of confidence many scientific organisations have published rules and guidelines dedicated to a Good Scientific Practice in the last few years. The German council of Science and Humanities now has adopted a position paper and recommendations on scientific integrity.” Read the rest of this entry »
“Research Data at your Fingertips”: German Priority Initiative ‘Digital Information’ publishes Position PaperPosted: March 20th, 2015 | Author: Sven | Filed under: found on the net, German | Tags: Position Paper, recommendations | Comments Off on “Research Data at your Fingertips”: German Priority Initiative ‘Digital Information’ publishes Position Paper
At the beginning the four page long paper sketches a short vision on how researchers will be able to work with research data in the year 2025. A “quick and easy access to all research data” is part of this vision, also the important task to credit researchers for sharing their research data is mentioned by the authors: “The publication of research data and software enhances the academic reputation.”
The second chapter of the paper deals with the current challenges in managing research data. Especially the situation in organisational structures, different research disciplines, publicly funded information institutions and research organisations is described. Read the rest of this entry »
Open Science and open data have become hot topics in recent years. Effective research data management is more and more postulated by research funders. Research infrastructure providers worldwide are busy building up various services and tools for researchers to support them within their research and the management of research data. But how successful are these approaches and their impact in supporting research? How open could or should data be and which role(s) libraries can play to support researchers effectively? Read the rest of this entry »
Benedikt Fecher, Sascha Friesike, and Marcel Hebing have published another paper presenting further results of their study concerning academic data sharing. Since data sharing enables researchers to verify results and to pursuit new research questions with “old” data, it is of particular importance for scientific progress.
Fecher, Friesike, and Hebing conducted a systematic review of 98 scholarly papers as well as an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users. In order to explain the data sharing process from the primary researcher’s point of view, the authors introduce a conceptual framework based on the analyses. They divide the data sharing process into six descriptive categories: data donor, research organization, research community, norms, data infrastructure, and data recipients. Read the rest of this entry »
Academic data sharing is a way for researchers to collaborate and thereby meet the needs of an increasingly complex research landscape. It enables researchers to verify results and to pursuit new research questions with “old” data.
It is therefore not surprising that data sharing is advocated by funding agencies, journals and researchers alike. Read the rest of this entry »
Open Access to Research Data: Strategic Delay and the Ambiguous Welfare Effects of Mandatory Data DisclosurePosted: February 23rd, 2015 | Author: lisa | Filed under: Data Policy, Data Sharing, EDaWaX | Tags: Data Policies, Strategic Delay, Welfare Effects | Comments Off on Open Access to Research Data: Strategic Delay and the Ambiguous Welfare Effects of Mandatory Data Disclosure
Patrick Andreoli-Versbach and Frank Mueller-Langer (two economists from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich) have published a paper on strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure (2014).
By setting up a model describing the incentives of a researcher to share self-generated data with the research community in the context of a published article, they found that these incentives can be distorted by a policy they call “First Paper Policy” (requires authors to share their data immediately after the first publication): Read the rest of this entry »
One work package (WP2) of EDaWaX’s second funding phase deals with a broader analysis and comparison of journals’ data policies in economics and business studies. In the project’s first funding phase we already have conducted a similar survey, but it primarily focused on journals in economics.
Because research data and methodology in business studies are not necessarily identical to those employed in economics, we found it to be important to compare journals’ data policies of both branches of economic research. Read the rest of this entry »
On November 20/21 the first national RDA Meeting Germany was held in Potsdam. More than 100 participants followed the presentations and discussions. One aim of the meeting was to inform interested people and institutions about RDA’s activities.
On the first day of the conference there were many presentations to inform about the results RDA has yet archived as well as the governance structure that has been defined for RDA. In addition, some perspectives for the future work of the RDA-IGs and WGs have been discussed. Read the rest of this entry »
A few days ago, Knowledge Exchange (KE) – a cooperation of five national funding organisations (DFG, Surf, DEFF, CSC and JISC) – has just released a new publication, titled “Sowing the seed: Incentives and motivations for sharing research data, a researchers’ perspective.”
This qualitative study has gathered evidence, examples and opinions on current and future incentives for research data sharing from the researchers’ point of view, in order to provide recommendations for policy and practice development on how best to incentivize data access and re-use.
Incentives and motivations ask for development of a data infrastructure with rich context where research data, papers and other outputs or resources are jointly available within a single data resource. Different types of data sharing and research disciplines need to be acknowledged. Read the rest of this entry »
The two economists Patrick Andreoli-Versbach and Frank Mueller-Langer (both from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich) have published a new paper in Research Policy in which they analyse the data-sharing behaviour of 488 randomly selected empirical researchers.*
Andreoli-Versbach and Mueller-Langer (2014) provide evidence that most researchers in economics and management do not share their data voluntarily. The authors Read the rest of this entry »
When it comes to the topic of replication, it always is a good idea to consult the webpages of the nature journal. Yesterday, for instance, the journal reported that a group of editors representing more than 30 major journals, representatives from funding agencies as well as scientific leaders discussed principles and guidelines for preclinical biomedical research in June 2014.
The gathering was convened by the US National Institutes of Health, Nature and Science.
The attendees agreed on a common set of principles and guidelines in reporting preclinical research that list proposed journal policies and author reporting requirements in order to promote transparency and reproducibility. Read the rest of this entry »
In order to provide better oversight of the interpretation of observational data handed in to the journal along with manuscripts, Science established the Statistical Board of Reviewing Editors (SBoRE), which started working on 1st July, 2014.
The board consists of experts in various aspects of statistics and data analysis. Their task is to investigate manuscripts, in order to identify issues which need screening, and to suggest experts from the statistics community to examine that data. Editors, BoRE members (members of the BoRE – Board of Reviewing Editors – conduct a rapid quality check of the manuscripts and propose which of them should be reviewed by technical specialists), and reviewers can decide which manuscripts need additional examination of the data analysis or statistical treatment, which will then be handed in to the SBoRE. Read the rest of this entry »