“We are Digital Science and we are advancing the research ecosystem.
We are a pioneering technology company, and our vision is of a future where a trusted and collaborative research ecosystem drives progress for all. We believe in better, open, collaborative and inclusive research. In creating the next generation of tools and working in partnership with the community we tackle some of the biggest challenges to research. In order to achieve our vision, we need innovative, inspiring and dynamic people to join our team. Want to join us?
Your new role
We are seeking a talented Product Manager who is passionate about open access, open data, research and repositories to join our team!
As the Product Manager (Figshare), you will be helping to guide the development of Figshare, our repository platform which helps researchers to make their research openly available….”
“Researchers around the world entrust their research data to Dryad’s reliable curation and publishing process. Over 80 institutions and publishing organizations currently sponsor data publication on behalf of their affiliated researchers through Dryad’s membership program. Our eight newest members reflect the diversity of organizations partnering with Dryad to realize their open research strategy. We are pleased to welcome:
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Northeast Ohio Medical University
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Nevada, Reno
University of Oregon
European Respiratory Society…”
“Signatories of this statement recommend the following as best practice in research data sharing:
When publishing their results, researchers deposit related research data and outputs in a trustworthy data repository that assigns persistent identifiers (DOIs where available). Researchers link to research data using persistent identifiers.
When using research data created by others, researchers provide attribution by citing the datasets in the reference section using persistent identifiers.
Data repositories enable sharing of research outputs in a FAIR way, including support for metadata quality and completeness.
Publishers set appropriate journal data policies, describing the way in which data is to be shared alongside the published article.
Publishers set instructions for authors to include Data Citations with persistent identifiers in the references section of articles.
Publishers include Data Citations and links to data in Data Availability Statements with persistent identifiers (DOIs where available) in the article metadata registered with Crossref.
In addition to Data Citations, Data Availability Statements (human- and machine-readable) are included in published articles where appropriate.
Repositories and publishers connect articles and datasets through persistent identifier connections in the metadata and reference lists.
Funders and research organizations provide researchers with guidance on open science practices, track compliance with open science policies where possible, and promote and incentivize researchers to openly share, cite and link research data.
Funders, policymaking institutions, publishers and research organizations collaborate towards aligning FAIR research data policies and guidelines.
All stakeholders collaborate in the development of tools, processes, and incentives throughout the research cycle to enable sharing of high-quality research data, making all steps in the process clear, easy and efficient for researchers by providing support and guidance.
Stakeholders responsible for research assessment take into account data sharing and data citation in their reward and recognition system structures….”
“However, when that open data is misorganized, appears sloppy, or is poorly documented, this doesn’t inspire the confidence that we want; this isn’t really open science. It’s not just about openly sharing data, it’s about sharing data that is well-organized, well-documented, interpretable, and re-usable. We saw both sides of this so clearly during the pandemic: sharing data, especially genetic data about the virus, accelerated our response to the pandemic — but we also saw high-profile cases that centered on the challenges of data that can’t or won’t be shared.
Federal and private funders are increasingly requiring data sharing. Merely “open” data isn’t enough to combat misinformation or the rising mistrust of research, however. So how do we move from a compliance mindset, which promotes a minimalist approach in which researchers might only put in the minimum amount of effort and thus potentially share poorly documented or disorganized data, to an ecosystem that actually enables and rewards open, equitable, and accessible scholarship? It’s important to note that a key part of this conversation requires nuance. It is not enough to share or not share data — we have to think of what data can be shared, in what forms, and with what documentation. We have to consider all of the potential outputs of a research project, including how best to organize distinct yet interrelated components and how to document these decisions clearly….”
Abstract: The study aims to trace the development of Indian Research Data repositories (RDRs) indexed in Registry of Research Data Repositories(re3data.org) with their types, subject coverage, software tools, standards and specification used for implementation. The study strives to achieve the following objectives such as: to analyze different aspects of Indian Research Data Repositories(RDRs), to identify data licenses, data upload and access restriction policies and to ascertain quality of scientific metadata being used in RDRs in India. The result of the survey is presented by examining the collected data from the libraries of Research Data Repositories. The result of the study will help to find the effective and qualitative research data in various discipline in Indian subcontinent.
“For PLOS, increasing data-sharing rates—and especially increasing the amount of data shared in a repository—is a high priority.
Research data is a vital part of the scientific record, essential to both understanding and reproducing published research. And data repositories are the most effective and impactful way to share research data. Not only is deposited data safer and more discoverable, articles with data in a repository have a 25% higher citation rate on average.
With support from the Wellcome Trust, we’ve been experimenting with two solutions designed to increase awareness about data repositories and promote data repository use among both authors and readers. One solution didn’t achieve its expected outcome in the context we tested it (a “negative” result) while the other shows promise as a tool for increasing engagement with deposited data. The mixed outcomes are an example of why it’s so important to share all research results regardless of their outcome – whether “positive” or “negative” results. We hope that our experiences, what we’ve learned, and above all the data and results, can help the scholarly communications community to develop new and better solutions to meet the challenges we all face, and advance Open Science.
Read on for a quick summary of the studies we conducted. Or get the full details from our new preprint on Figshare, and explore the data for yourself….”
Abstract: Improving the uptake of repositories to share research data is an aim of many publishers, funders and infrastructure providers. Even at the publisher PLOS, which has a mandatory data sharing policy, repositories are still used less commonly than Supporting Information to share data. This preprint presents the results of two experiments that tested solutions that aimed to increase the use of repositories for data sharing as well as increase engagement with shared data. The experiments—integration of the Dryad repository into the manuscript submission system at PLOS Pathogens and implementing an Accessible Data icon to signal data shared in a repository on published articles across the PLOS journal portfolio—were designed to be interventions that required minimal extra effort for authors (researchers). We collected usage data on these solutions as well as survey (n=654 and n=4,898) and interview (n=12) data from submitting authors. The results show that author uptake of the integrated repository (used by ~2% of submissions) was lower than expected in part due to lack of awareness despite various communication methods being used. Integration of data repositories into the journal submission process, in the context in which we tested it, may not increase use of repositories without additional visibility, or policy incentives. Our survey results suggest the Accessible Data icon did have some effect on author behaviour, although not in the expected way, as it influenced repository choice for authors who had already planned to use a repository rather than influencing the choice of sharing method. Furthermore, the Accessible Data icon was successful in increasing engagement with shared data, as measured by an increase in average monthly views of datasets linked to a cohort of 543 published articles that displayed it from 2.5 to 3.0 (an increase of 20%) comparing 12-month periods either side of the introduction of the icon. The results of these two experiments provide valuable insights to publishers and other stakeholders about strategies for increasing the use of repositories for sharing research data.
The purpose of this study was to understand the landscape of Indian research data repositories (RDRs) indexed in the re3data.org. The study analysed the metadata elements of Indian RDRs to identify their disciplinary orientations, typology, standards adopted, foreign collaborations, etc. The study ascertained the current status of the Indian RDRs by visiting their respective websites and tried to identify and map the exact disciplinary orientation of each RDR.
The study used “content analysis” of the metadata elements extracted from re3data.org along with the information analysis of the respective websites of the registered RDRs.
The study identified that only 80% of the Indian RDRs listed by the re3data.org is currently active. Most of the Indian RDRs are hosted by the central and state governments and are almost equally distributed among Life Sciences, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences domains. The data provided by the re3data.org for the Indian RDRs are not complete and up-to-date.
The findings indicate the presence of a good number of inactive RDRs in the re3data.org. The study suggests using a revised version of the DFG subject classification scheme or considering a standard classification scheme for subject indexing.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind that critically analysed the metadata values extracted and moved further to identify the current status of Indian RDRs.
The study aims to investigate the utilisation of open research data repositories (RDRs) for storing and sharing research data in higher learning institutions (HLIs) in Tanzania.
A survey research design was employed to collect data from postgraduate students at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST) in Arusha, Tanzania. The data were collected and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A census sampling technique was employed to select the sample size for this study. The quantitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), whilst the qualitative data were analysed thematically.
Less than half of the respondents were aware of and were using open RDRs, including Zenodo, DataVerse, Dryad, OMERO, GitHub and Mendeley data repositories. More than half of the respondents were not willing to share research data and cited a lack of ownership after storing their research data in most of the open RDRs and data security. HILs need to conduct training on using trusted repositories and motivate postgraduate students to utilise open repositories (ORs). The challenges for underutilisation of open RDRs were a lack of policies governing the storage and sharing of research data and grant constraints.
Research data storage and sharing are of great interest to researchers in HILs to inform them to implement open RDRs to support these researchers. Open RDRs increase visibility within HILs and reduce research data loss, and research works will be cited and used publicly. This paper identifies the potential for additional studies focussed on this area.
“Borealis, the Canadian Dataverse Repository, is a bilingual, multidisciplinary, secure, Canadian research data repository, supported by academic libraries and research institutions across Canada. Borealis supports open discovery, management, sharing, and preservation of Canadian research data….”
Abstract: With the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, biomedical imaging data play an important role in scientific research and clinical application, but the available resources are limited. Here we present Open Biomedical Imaging Archive (OBIA), a repository for archiving biomedical imaging and related clinical data. OBIA adopts five data objects (Collection, Individual, Study, Series, and Image) for data organization, accepts the submission of biomedical images of multiple modalities, organs, and diseases. In order to protect personal privacy, OBIA has formulated a unified de-identification and quality control process. In addition, OBIA provides friendly and intuitive web interface for data submission, browsing and retrieval, as well as image retrieval. As of September 2023, OBIA has housed data for a total of 937 individuals, 4136 studies, 24,701 series, and 1,938,309 images covering 9 modalities and 30 anatomical sites. Collectively, OBIA provides a reliable platform for biomedical imaging data management and offers free open access to all publicly available data to support research activities throughout the world. OBIA can be accessed at https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/obia.
Abstract: In January 2023, a new NIH policy on data sharing went into effect. The policy applies to both quantitative and qualitative research (QR) data such as data from interviews or focus groups. QR data are often sensitive and difficult to deidentify, and thus have rarely been shared in the United States. Over the past 5 y, our research team has engaged stakeholders on QR data sharing, developed software to support data deidentification, produced guidance, and collaborated with the ICPSR data repository to pilot the deposit of 30 QR datasets. In this perspective article, we share important lessons learned by addressing eight clusters of questions on issues such as where, when, and what to share; how to deidentify data and support high-quality secondary use; budgeting for data sharing; and the permissions needed to share data. We also offer a brief assessment of the state of preparedness of data repositories, QR journals, and QR textbooks to support data sharing. While QR data sharing could yield important benefits to the research community, we quickly need to develop enforceable standards, expertise, and resources to support responsible QR data sharing. Absent these resources, we risk violating participant confidentiality and wasting a significant amount of time and funding on data that are not useful for either secondary use or data transparency and verification.
Abstract: Currently, there is limited research investigating the phenomenon of research data repositories being shut down, and the impact this has on the long-term availability of data. This paper takes an infrastructure perspective on the preservation of research data by using a registry to identify 191 research data repositories that have been closed and presenting information on the shutdown process. The results show that 6.2 % of research data repositories indexed in the registry were shut down. The risks resulting in repository shutdown are varied. The median age of a repository when shutting down is 12 years. Strategies to prevent data loss at the infrastructure level are pursued to varying extent. 44 % of the repositories in the sample migrated data to another repository, and 12 % maintain limited access to their data collection. However, both strategies are not permanent solutions. Finally, the general lack of information on repository shutdown events as well as the effect on the findability of data and the permanence of the scholarly record are discussed.
“Researchers and academic staff who support them, representatives from data repositories, and NIH staff interested in how metadata can make NIH-funded research more findable are invited to the GREI Metadata and Search subcommittee’s Collaborative Webinar: Metadata Recommendations on September 15 at 2pm US EDT.
At this webinar, attendees will learn about the metadata recommendations from the GREI metadata and search subcommittee, including how the recommendations came about, what we hope to achieve, and next steps. Attendees will also have a chance to share their feedback. Registration is free and open to all who are interested. We look forward to seeing you there!”
Abstract: As funder, journal, and disciplinary norms and mandates have foregrounded obligations of data sharing and opportunities for data reuse, the need to plan for and curate data sets that can reach researchers and end-users with disabilities has become even more urgent. We begin by exploring the disability studies literature, describing the need for advocacy and representation of disabled scholars as data creators, subjects, and users. We then survey the landscape of data repositories, curation guidelines, and research-data-related standards, finding little consideration of accessibility for people with disabilities. We suggest three sets of minimal good practices for moving toward truly accessible research data: 1) ensuring Web accessibility for data repositories; 2) ensuring accessibility of common text formats, including those used in documentation; and 3) enhancement of visual and audiovisual materials. We point to some signs of progress in regard to truly accessible data by highlighting exemplary practices by repositories, standards, and data professionals. Accessibility needs to become a mainstream component of curation practice included in every training, manual, and primer.