Correction: Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: PLOS ONE Staff
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4383539 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction: Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.
PloS one 20150402 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:Data "publication" seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences- asking what expectations"data publication" raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data's documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data.
| S-EPMC4338305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite abundant focus on responsible care of laboratory animals, we argue that inattention to the maltreatment of wildlife constitutes an ethical blind spot in contemporary animal research. We begin by reviewing significant shortcomings in legal and institutional oversight, arguing for the relatively rapid and transformational potential of editorial oversight at journals in preventing harm to vertebrates studied in the field and outside the direct supervision of institutions. Straightforward changes to animal care policies in journals, which our analysis of 206 journals suggests are either absent (34%), weak, incoherent, or neglected by researchers, could provide a practical, effective, and rapidly imposed safeguard against unnecessary suffering. The Animals in Research: Reporting On Wildlife (ARROW) guidelines we propose here, coupled with strong enforcement, could result in significant changes to how animals involved in wildlife research are treated. The research process would also benefit. Sound science requires animal subjects to be physically, physiologically, and behaviorally unharmed. Accordingly, publication of methods that contravenes animal welfare principles risks perpetuating inhumane approaches and bad science.
| S-EPMC6459470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data papers have emerged as a powerful instrument for open data publishing, obtaining credit, and establishing priority for datasets generated in scientific experiments. Academic publishing improves data and metadata quality through peer review and increases the impact of datasets by enhancing their visibility, accessibility, and reusability. We aimed to establish a new type of article structure and template for omics studies: the omics data paper. To improve data interoperability and further incentivize researchers to publish well-described datasets, we created a prototype workflow for streamlined import of genomics metadata from the European Nucleotide Archive directly into a data paper manuscript. An omics data paper template was designed by defining key article sections that encourage the description of omics datasets and methodologies. A metadata import workflow, based on REpresentational State Transfer services and Xpath, was prototyped to extract information from the European Nucleotide Archive, ArrayExpress, and BioSamples databases. The template and workflow for automatic import of standard-compliant metadata into an omics data paper manuscript provide a mechanism for enhancing existing metadata through publishing. The omics data paper structure and workflow for import of genomics metadata will help to bring genomic and other omics datasets into the spotlight. Promoting enhanced metadata descriptions and enforcing manuscript peer review and data auditing of the underlying datasets brings additional quality to datasets. We hope that streamlined metadata reuse for scholarly publishing encourages authors to create enhanced metadata descriptions in the form of data papers to improve both the quality of their metadata and its findability and accessibility.
| S-EPMC8117446 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4587732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The impact of commercialization and patenting pressure on genomics research is still a topic of considerable debate in academic, policy and popular literature. We interviewed genomic researchers to see if their perspectives offered fresh insights. Regional Genome Canada centers provided us with relevant researcher contact information, and in-depth structured interviews were conducted. Researcher perspectives were sharply divided, with both support and concern for commercialization regimes surfacing in interviews. Data withholding and publication delays were commonly reported, but the aggressive enforcement of patents was not. There are parallels to the Stem Cell community in Canada in these respects. Genomic researchers, as individuals directly implicated in the field of controversy, have developed varied and often novel insights which should be incorporated into the ongoing debates surrounding commercialization and patenting. Many researchers continue to raise concerns, particularly in relation to data withholding, thus emphasizing the need for a continued exploration of the complex issues associated with commercialization and patenting.
| S-EPMC2664955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCommon barriers to students' persistence in research include experiencing feelings of exclusion and a lack of belonging, difficulties developing a robust researcher identity, perceptions of racial and social stigma directed toward them, and perceived gaps in research skills, which are particularly pronounced among trainees from groups traditionally underrepresented in research. To address these known barriers, summer research programs have been shown to increase the participation and retention of undergraduate students in research. However, previous programs have focused predominantly on technical knowledge and skills, without integrating an academic enrichment curriculum that promotes professional development by improving students' academic and research communication skills.ObjectiveThis retrospective pre-then-post study aimed to evaluate changes in self-reported ratings of research abilities among a cohort of undergraduate students who participated in a summer research program.MethodsThe Human BioMolecular Atlas Program (HuBMAP) piloted the implementation of a web-based academic enrichment curriculum for the Summer 2023 Research Internship cohort, which was comprised of students from groups underrepresented in biomedical artificial intelligence research. HuBMAP, a 400-member research consortium funded by the Common Fund at the National Institutes of Health, offered a 10-week summer research internship that included an academic enrichment curriculum delivered synchronously via the web to all students across multiple sites. The curriculum is intended to support intern self-efficacy, researcher identity development, and peer-to-peer learning. At the end of the internship, students were invited to participate in a web-based survey in which they were asked to rate their academic and research abilities before the internship and as a result of the internship using a modified Entering Research Learning Assessment instrument. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was performed to assess the difference in the mean scores per respondent before and after participating in the internship.ResultsA total of 14 of the 22 undergraduate students who participated in the internship responded to the survey. The results of the retrospective pre-then-post survey indicated that there was a significant increase in students' self-rated research abilities, evidenced by a significant improvement in the mean scores of the respondents when comparing reported skills self-assessment before and after the internship (improvement: median 1.09, IQR 0.88-1.65; W=52.5, P<.001). After participating in the HuBMAP web-based academic enrichment curriculum, students' self-reported research abilities, including their confidence, their communication and collaboration skills, their self-efficacy in research, and their abilities to set research career goals, increased.ConclusionsSummer internship programs can incorporate an academic enrichment curriculum with small-group peer learning in addition to a laboratory-based experience to facilitate increased student engagement, self-efficacy, and a sense of belonging in the research community. Future research should investigate the impact of academic enrichment curricula and peer mentoring on the long-term retention of students in biomedical research careers, particularly retention of students underrepresented in biomedical fields.
| S-EPMC11809269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past decade, bioethicists, legal scholars and social scientists have started to investigate the potential implications of epigenetic research and technologies on medicine and society. There is growing literature discussing the most promising opportunities, as well as arising ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). This paper explores the views of epigenetic researchers about some of these discussions. From January to March 2020, we conducted an online survey of 189 epigenetic researchers working in 31 countries. We questioned them about the scope of their field, opportunities in different areas of specialization, and ELSI in the conduct of research and knowledge translation. We also assessed their level of concern regarding four emerging non-medical applications of epigenetic testing-i.e., in life insurance, forensics, immigration and direct-to-consumer testing. Although there was strong agreement on DNA methylation, histone modifications, 3D structure of chromatin and nucleosomes being integral elements of the field, there was considerable disagreement on transcription factors, RNA interference, RNA splicing and prions. The most prevalent ELSI experienced or witnessed by respondents were in obtaining timely access to epigenetic data in existing databases, and in the communication of epigenetic findings by the media. They expressed high levels of concern regarding non-medical applications of epigenetics, echoing cautionary appraisals in the social sciences and humanities literature.
| S-EPMC9440515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the number of personal exposure studies expands and trends favor greater openness and transparency in the health sciences, ethical issues arise around reporting back individual results for contaminants without clear health guidelines. Past research demonstrates that research participants want their results even when the health implications are not known. The experiences of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) in studies that have reported personal chemical exposures can provide insights about ethical and practical approaches while also revealing areas of continued uncertainty. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and nine IRB members from seven personal exposure studies across the United States to investigate their experiences and attitudes about the report-back process. Researchers reported multiple benefits of report-back, including increasing retention and recruitment, advancing environmental health literacy, empowering study participants to take actions to reduce exposures, encouraging shifts in government and industry practices, and helping researchers discover sources of exposure through participant consultation. Researchers also reported challenges, including maintaining ongoing contact with participants, adopting protocols for notification of high exposures to chemicals without health guidelines, developing meaningful report-back materials, and resource limitations. IRB members reported concern for potential harm to participants, such as anxiety about personal results and counterproductive behavior changes. In contrast, researchers who have conducted personal report-back in their studies said that participants did not appear overly alarmed and noted that worry can be a positive outcome to motivate action to reduce harmful exposures. While key concerns raised during the early days of report-back have been substantially resolved for scientists with report-back experience, areas of uncertainty remain. These include ethical tensions surrounding the responsibility of researchers to leverage study results and resources to assist participants in policy or community-level actions to reduce chemical exposures, and how to navigate report-back to vulnerable populations.
| S-EPMC5412511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research software, which includes both source code and executables used as part of the research process, presents a significant challenge for efforts aimed at ensuring reproducibility. In order to inform such efforts, we conducted a survey to better understand the characteristics of research software as well as how it is created, used, and shared by researchers. Based on the responses of 215 participants, representing a range of research disciplines, we found that researchers create, use, and share software in a wide variety of forms for a wide variety of purposes, including data collection, data analysis, data visualization, data cleaning and organization, and automation. More participants indicated that they use open source software than commercial software. While a relatively small number of programming languages (e.g., Python, R, JavaScript, C++, MATLAB) are used by a large number, there is a long tail of languages used by relatively few. Between-group comparisons revealed that significantly more participants from computer science write source code and create executables than participants from other disciplines. Differences between researchers from computer science and other disciplines related to the knowledge of best practices of software creation and sharing were not statistically significant. While many participants indicated that they draw a distinction between the sharing and preservation of software, related practices and perceptions were often not aligned with those of the broader scholarly communications community.
| S-EPMC7924683 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1352077 | biostudies-literature