Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Daniel G Hamilton, Matthew J Page, Sarah Everitt, Hannah Fraser, Fiona Fidler
{"title":"Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Daniel G Hamilton, Matthew J Page, Sarah Everitt, Hannah Fraser, Fiona Fidler","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2308606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"530-557"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2308606","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.

Methods: We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.

Results: We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires.

Conclusions: Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.

癌症研究人员对研究数据共享的经验和看法:横断面调查结果。
背景:尽管人们广泛认识到共享研究数据的好处,但在过去十年中,肿瘤学或更广泛的医学领域的数据公开率并没有大幅提高:我们对 285 名癌症研究人员进行了调查,以了解他们以前共享数据的经验以及对已知驱动因素和抑制因素的看法:我们发现,45% 的受访者分享过他们最近发表的经验性文章中的一些数据,其中通常研究非人类研究参与者或经常使用人类基因组数据的受访者比不这样做的受访者更有可能分享数据。三分之一的受访者补充说,他们以前曾私下共享过数据,74%的受访者表示,这样做也为他们带来了作者机会或未来的合作机会。据报道,期刊和资助者政策是推动共享的最大动力,而商业利益、与行业赞助商的协议以及机构政策则是最大的阻碍因素。我们表明,研究人员关于是否共享数据的决定也可能受到参与者愿望的影响:我们的调查表明,研究机构加大宣传和支持力度,期刊和资助方加大对数据共享的支持力度,可能会促使更多肿瘤学研究人员共享数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信