Literature DB >> 24604667

Why is data sharing in collaborative natural resource efforts so hard and what can we do to improve it?

Carol J Volk1, Yasmin Lucero, Katie Barnas.   

Abstract

Increasingly, research and management in natural resource science rely on very large datasets compiled from multiple sources. While it is generally good to have more data, utilizing large, complex datasets has introduced challenges in data sharing, especially for collaborating researchers in disparate locations ("distributed research teams"). We surveyed natural resource scientists about common data-sharing problems. The major issues identified by our survey respondents (n = 118) when providing data were lack of clarity in the data request (including format of data requested). When receiving data, survey respondents reported various insufficiencies in documentation describing the data (e.g., no data collection description/no protocol, data aggregated, or summarized without explanation). Since metadata, or "information about the data," is a central obstacle in efficient data handling, we suggest documenting metadata through data dictionaries, protocols, read-me files, explicit null value documentation, and process metadata as essential to any large-scale research program. We advocate for all researchers, but especially those involved in distributed teams to alleviate these problems with the use of several readily available communication strategies including the use of organizational charts to define roles, data flow diagrams to outline procedures and timelines, and data update cycles to guide data-handling expectations. In particular, we argue that distributed research teams magnify data-sharing challenges making data management training even more crucial for natural resource scientists. If natural resource scientists fail to overcome communication and metadata documentation issues, then negative data-sharing experiences will likely continue to undermine the success of many large-scale collaborative projects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24604667     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-014-0258-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  9 in total

1.  Techview: computers and biology. Bioinformatics in the information age.

Authors:  S J Spengler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-02-18       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Ecology. Ecosystem-based fishery management.

Authors:  E K Pikitch; C Santora; E A Babcock; A Bakun; R Bonfil; D O Conover; P Dayton; P Doukakis; D Fluharty; B Heneman; E D Houde; J Link; P A Livingston; M Mangel; M K McAllister; J Pope; K J Sainsbury
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-07-16       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data-intensive science.

Authors:  William K Michener; Matthew B Jones
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Repeatability and transparency in ecological research.

Authors:  Aaron M Ellison
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.499

5.  Analytic webs support the synthesis of ecological data sets.

Authors:  Aaron M Ellison; Leon J Osterweil; Lori Clarke; Julian L Hadley; Alexander Wise; Emery Boose; David R Foster; Allen Hanson; David Jensen; Paul Kuzeja; Edward Riseman; Howard Schultz
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.499

6.  Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Christine Vogeli; Recai Yucel; Eran Bendavid; Lisa M Jones; Melissa S Anderson; Karen Seashore Louis; Eric G Campbell
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 7.  Advancing ecological research with ontologies.

Authors:  Joshua S Madin; Shawn Bowers; Mark P Schildhauer; Matthew B Jones
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 17.712

8.  Data sharing: Empty archives.

Authors:  Bryn Nelson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions.

Authors:  Carol Tenopir; Suzie Allard; Kimberly Douglass; Arsev Umur Aydinoglu; Lei Wu; Eleanor Read; Maribeth Manoff; Mike Frame
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: Practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide.

Authors:  Carol Tenopir; Natalie M Rice; Suzie Allard; Lynn Baird; Josh Borycz; Lisa Christian; Bruce Grant; Robert Olendorf; Robert J Sandusky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Centralized project-specific metadata platforms: toolkit provides new perspectives on open data management within multi-institution and multidisciplinary research projects.

Authors:  Andrew Wright Child; Jennifer Hinds; Lucas Sheneman; Sven Buerki
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2022-03-18

3.  Changes in Data Sharing and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions among Scientists Worldwide.

Authors:  Carol Tenopir; Elizabeth D Dalton; Suzie Allard; Mike Frame; Ivanka Pjesivac; Ben Birch; Danielle Pollock; Kristina Dorsett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines.

Authors:  Leho Tedersoo; Rainer Küngas; Ester Oras; Kajar Köster; Helen Eenmaa; Äli Leijen; Margus Pedaste; Marju Raju; Anastasiya Astapova; Heli Lukner; Karin Kogermann; Tuul Sepp
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 6.444

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.