Surveying the landscape of CIHR-funded research data sharing practices: An analysis of the published literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:As Canada increases requirements for research data management (RDM) and sharing, there is value in identifying how research data are shared, and what has been done to make them findable and reusable. This study aims to understand Canada’s data sharing landscape by reviewing how Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funded data are shared, and comparing researchers’ data sharing practices to RDM and sharing best practices. Methods:We performed a descriptive analysis of CIHR-funded publications from PubMed and PubMed Central that were published between 1946 and Dec 31, 2019 and that indicated the research data underlying the results of the publication were shared. Each publication was analyzed to identify how and where data were shared, who shared data, and what documentation was included to support data reuse.Results:Of 4,144 CIHR-funded publications, 45.2% (n=1,876) included accessible data, 21.9% (n=909) stated data were available by request, 7.3% (n=304) stated data sharing was not applicable/possible, and we found no evidence of data sharing in 37.6% (n=1,558) of publications. Frequent data sharing methods included via a repository (n=1,549, 37.3%), within supplementary files (n=1,048, 25.2%), and by request (n=919, 22.1%). 13.1% (n=554) of publications included documentation that would facilitate data reuse.Interpretation:Our findings reveal that CIHR-funded publications largely lack the metadata, access instructions, and documentation to facilitate data discovery and reuse. Without measures to address these concerns, and enhanced support for researchers seeking to implement RDM and sharing best practices, most CIHR-funded research data will remain hidden, inaccessible, and unusable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.201 | 0.465 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.079 | 0.157 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".