IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0037552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mine, Yours, Ours? Sharing Data on Human Genetic Variation

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Milia
  • Alessandra Congiu
  • Paolo Anagnostou
  • Francesco Montinaro
  • Marco Capocasa
  • Emanuele Sanna
  • Giovanni Destro Bisol

Abstract

The achievement of a robust, effective and responsible form of data sharing is currently regarded as a priority for biological and bio-medical research. Empirical evaluations of data sharing may be regarded as an indispensable first step in the identification of critical aspects and the development of strategies aimed at increasing availability of research data for the scientific community as a whole. Research concerning human genetic variation represents a potential forerunner in the establishment of widespread sharing of primary datasets. However, no specific analysis has been conducted to date in order to ascertain whether the sharing of primary datasets is common-practice in this research field. To this aim, we analyzed a total of 543 mitochondrial and Y chromosomal datasets reported in 508 papers indexed in the Pubmed database from 2008 to 2011. A substantial portion of datasets (21.9%) was found to have been withheld, while neither strong editorial policies nor high impact factor proved to be effective in increasing the sharing rate beyond the current figure of 80.5%. Disaggregating datasets for research fields, we could observe a substantially lower sharing in medical than evolutionary and forensic genetics, more evident for whole mtDNA sequences (15.0% vs 99.6%). The low rate of positive responses to e-mail requests sent to corresponding authors of withheld datasets (28.6%) suggests that sharing should be regarded as a prerequisite for final paper acceptance, while making authors deposit their results in open online databases which provide data quality control seems to provide the best-practice standard. Finally, we estimated that 29.8% to 32.9% of total resources are used to generate withheld datasets, implying that an important portion of research funding does not produce shared knowledge. By making the scientific community and the public aware of this important aspect, we may help popularize a more effective culture of data sharing.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Milia & Alessandra Congiu & Paolo Anagnostou & Francesco Montinaro & Marco Capocasa & Emanuele Sanna & Giovanni Destro Bisol, 2012. "Mine, Yours, Ours? Sharing Data on Human Genetic Variation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-8, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0037552
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037552
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037552&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0037552?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heather A Piwowar, 2011. "Who Shares? Who Doesn't? Factors Associated with Openly Archiving Raw Research Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Kimberly Douglass & Arsev Umur Aydinoglu & Lei Wu & Eleanor Read & Maribeth Manoff & Mike Frame, 2011. "Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Caroline J Savage & Andrew J Vickers, 2009. "Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(9), pages 1-3, September.
    4. Heather A. Piwowar & Todd J. Vision & Michael C. Whitlock, 2011. "Data archiving is a good investment," Nature, Nature, vol. 473(7347), pages 285-285, May.
    5. Heather A Piwowar & Roger S Day & Douglas B Fridsma, 2007. "Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-5, March.
    6. Bryn Nelson, 2009. "Data sharing: Empty archives," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7261), pages 160-163, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher W Belter, 2014. "Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Genevieve Pham-Kanter & Darren E Zinner & Eric G Campbell, 2014. "Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    3. Andrew F Magee & Michael R May & Brian R Moore, 2014. "The Dawn of Open Access to Phylogenetic Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Anneke Zuiderwijk, 2024. "Researchers’ Willingness and Ability to Openly Share Their Research Data: A Survey of COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Factors," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1), pages 21582440241, March.
    5. Jennifer C Molloy, 2012. "The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science," Working Papers id:4686, eSocialSciences.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Marcus Munafò & Amalia Mas-Bleda & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Verena Weigert & Chris Keene & Nushrat Khan & Katie Drax & Kayvan Kousha, 2020. "Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    7. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2015. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, February.
    8. Isabella Peters & Peter Kraker & Elisabeth Lex & Christian Gumpenberger & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 723-744, May.
    9. Zeng, Tong & Wu, Longfeng & Bratt, Sarah & Acuna, Daniel E., 2020. "Assigning credit to scientific datasets using article citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    10. Jennifer C Molloy, 2011. "The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-4, December.
    11. John Ernest Kratz & Carly Strasser, 2015. "Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Vanessa V Sochat & Cameron J Prybol & Gregory M Kurtzer, 2017. "Enhancing reproducibility in scientific computing: Metrics and registry for Singularity containers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Garret Christensen & Allan Dafoe & Edward Miguel & Don A Moore & Andrew K Rose, 2019. "A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal policies as a natural experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    15. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    16. Javier Martínez-Vega & David Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2022. "Protected Area Effectiveness in the Scientific Literature: A Decade-Long Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Mark J. McCabe & Frank Mueller-Langer, 2019. "Does Data Disclosure Increase Citations? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Leading Economics Journals," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Krzysztof J Gorgolewski & Russell A Poldrack, 2016. "A Practical Guide for Improving Transparency and Reproducibility in Neuroimaging Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-13, July.
    19. Harper, Lindsey M. & Kim, Youngseek, 2018. "Attitudinal, normative, and resource factors affecting psychologists’ intentions to adopt an open data badge: An empirical analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 23-32.
    20. International Society for Biocuration, 2018. "Biocuration: Distilling data into knowledge," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-8, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0037552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.