“Machines are not going to organize data science research,” said Bin Yu, a statistician at the University of California, Berkeley, who works on high-dimensional data problems. “Humans have to lead the way.” But, she said, “no one knows who is leading data science right now.”

Research on practices to share and reuse data will inform the design of infrastructure to support data collection, management, and discovery in the long tail of science and technology. These are research domains in which data tend to be local in character, minimally structured, and minimally documented. We report on a ten-year study of the Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. We found that CENS researchers are willing to share their data, but few are asked to do so, and in only a few domain areas do their funders or journals require them to deposit data. Few repositories exist to accept data in CENS research areas.. Data sharing tends to occur only through interpersonal exchanges. CENS researchers obtain data from repositories, and occasionally from registries and individuals, to provide context, calibration, or other forms of background for their studies. Neither CENS researchers nor those who request access to CENS data appear to use external data for primary research questions or for replication of studies. CENS researchers are willing to share data if they receive credit and retain first rights to publish their results. Practices of releasing, sharing, and reusing of data in CENS reaffirm the gift culture of scholarship, in which goods are bartered between trusted colleagues rather than treated as commodities.

"Don't be lazy," sez Figshare creator.

International attention to scientific data continues to grow. Opportunities emerge to re-visit long-standing approaches to managing data and to critic …

The "scooping" dilemma in a nutshell.

Shows the difference between data and graphs.

Objectives: (1) to identify common errors in data organization and metadata completeness that would preclude a “reader” from being able to interpret and re-use the data for a new purpose; and (2) to develop a set of best practices derived from these common errors that would guide researchers in creating more usable data products that could be readily shared, interpreted, and used. Methods: We used directed qualitative content analysis to assess and categorize data and metadata errors identified by peer reviewers of data papers published in the Ecological Society of America’s (ESA) Ecological Archives. Descriptive statistics provided the relative frequency of the errors identified during the peer review process. Results: There were seven overarching error categories: Collection & Organization, Assure, Description, Preserve, Discover, Integrate, and Analyze/Visualize. These categories represent errors researchers regularly make at each stage of the Data Life Cycle. Collection & Organization and Description errors were some of the most common errors, both of which occurred in over 90% of the papers.  Conclusions: Publishing data for sharing and reuse is error prone, and each stage of the Data Life Cycle presents opportunities for mistakes. The most common errors occurred when the researcher did not provide adequate metadata to enable others to interpret and potentially re-use the data. Fortunately, there are ways to minimize these mistakes through carefully recording all details about study context, data collection, QA/ QC, and analytical procedures from the beginning of a research project and then including this descriptive information in the metadata.

In this report, we present the results of Ithaka S+R’s study of the scholarly practices of academic chemists. This study, funded by Jisc, presents

What often happens when you ask a researcher for his/her data.

This blog post is written by Sven Vlaeminck | ZBW – German National Library of Economics / Leibniz Information Center for Economics Background In Economics, as in many other research disciplines, t…

Objective:Cornell University’s Research Data Management Service Group (RDMSG) surveyed NSF principal investigators (PIs) at Cornell in order to understand how well-prepared researchers are to meet the new NSF data management planning requirement, to build our own understanding of the potential impact on campus services, and to identify service gaps. Methods: We administered a 43-question online survey, which included questions about the respondents’ research and research data, their interest in assistance with the creation of data management plans, and questions for each of the five general areas cited in the NSF’s Grant Proposal Guide (2011) section on data management plans. Results and Discussion: Respondents produce a wide variety of types and formats of data, although most expect to share relatively small amounts of data. Respondents are generally uncertain as to whether the data they produce conforms to disciplinary standards. The majority create no metadata; of those that do, most do not create metadata according to a particular standard. Most researchers do not express a need for advice regarding intellectual property issues. Researchers report using a variety of strategies (on-campus and commercial) for backing up and for providing access to their data sets. Conclusions: The overarching finding from our survey is that there is much uncertainty about what the new requirement means and how to meet it, and researchers welcome offers of assistance. To the extent that Cornell researchers are representative of NSF PIs, our findings reveal something about researchers’ readiness to meet the new requirement, and their attitudes towards it.

Background Scientific research in the 21st century is more data intensive and collaborative than in the past. It is important to study the data practices of researchers – data accessibility, discovery, re-use, preservation and, particularly, data sharing. Data sharing is a valuable part of the scientific method allowing for verification of results and extending research from prior results.   Methodology/Principal Findings A total of 1329 scientists participated in this survey exploring current data sharing practices and perceptions of the barriers and enablers of data sharing. Scientists do not make their data electronically available to others for various reasons, including insufficient time and lack of funding. Most respondents are satisfied with their current processes for the initial and short-term parts of the data or research lifecycle (collecting their research data; searching for, describing or cataloging, analyzing, and short-term storage of their data) but are not satisfied with long-term data preservation. Many organizations do not provide support to their researchers for data management both in the short- and long-term. If certain conditions are met (such as formal citation and sharing reprints) respondents agree they are willing to share their data. There are also significant differences and approaches in data management practices based on primary funding agency, subject discipline, age, work focus, and world region.   Conclusions/Significance Barriers to effective data sharing and preservation are deeply rooted in the practices and culture of the research process as well as the researchers themselves. New mandates for data management plans from NSF and other federal agencies and world-wide attention to the need to share and preserve data could lead to changes. Large scale programs, such as the NSF-sponsored DataNET (including projects like DataONE) will both bring attention and resources to the issue and make it easier for scientists to apply sound data management principles.