Enhancing transparency through open government data: the case of data portals and their features and capabilities | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

The purpose of this paper was to draw on evidence from computer-mediated transparency and examine the argument that open government data and national data infrastructures represented by open data portals can help in enhancing transparency by providing various relevant features and capabilities for stakeholders’ interactions.

Design/methodology/approach

The developed methodology consisted of a two-step strategy to investigate research questions. First, a web content analysis was conducted to identify the most common features and capabilities provided by existing national open data portals. The second step involved performing the Delphi process by surveying domain experts to measure the diversity of their opinions on this topic.

Findings

Identified features and capabilities were classified into categories and ranked according to their importance. By formalizing these feature-related transparency mechanisms through which stakeholders work with data sets we provided recommendations on how to incorporate them into designing and developing open data portals.

Social implications

The creation of appropriate open data portals aims to fulfil the principles of open government and enables stakeholders to effectively engage in the policy and decision-making processes.

Originality/value

By analyzing existing national open data portals and validating the feature-related transparency mechanisms, this paper fills this gap in existing literature on designing and developing open data portals for transparency efforts.

IRUS-US: Institutional Repository Usage Statistics Service

“LYRASIS is partnering with Jisc to form and administer a new IRUS-US community of users. Institutions participating in IRUS-US install the IRUS tracker, allowing Jisc to collects raw download data for all item types and processes those raw data into COUNTER-conformant statistics. Those statistics are aggregated in open access statistical reports, allowing institutions to: share usage information with individual researchers; share usage information with administration; compare usage information with peer institutions; and use usage information to identify national trends.

IRUS-US functions as a small piece of code that is added to IR, enabling a ‘tracker protocol’ that allows Jisc to collect the raw data. Current compatible IR softwares include Dspace, Eprints, Fedora, Figshare, Haplo, Pure portal, Worktribe, Equella and Esploro. Any institution using a software not listed above should contact LYRASIS and indicate their interest, and we will do our best to encourage the software creators to add IRUS tracker functionality into their software capabilities.”

IRUS-US: Institutional Repository Usage Statistics Service

“LYRASIS is partnering with Jisc to form and administer a new IRUS-US community of users. Institutions participating in IRUS-US install the IRUS tracker, allowing Jisc to collects raw download data for all item types and processes those raw data into COUNTER-conformant statistics. Those statistics are aggregated in open access statistical reports, allowing institutions to: share usage information with individual researchers; share usage information with administration; compare usage information with peer institutions; and use usage information to identify national trends.

IRUS-US functions as a small piece of code that is added to IR, enabling a ‘tracker protocol’ that allows Jisc to collect the raw data. Current compatible IR softwares include Dspace, Eprints, Fedora, Figshare, Haplo, Pure portal, Worktribe, Equella and Esploro. Any institution using a software not listed above should contact LYRASIS and indicate their interest, and we will do our best to encourage the software creators to add IRUS tracker functionality into their software capabilities.”

Characteristics of available studies and dissemination of research using major clinical data sharing platforms – Enrique Vazquez, Henri Gouraud, Florian Naudet, Cary P Gross, Harlan M Krumholz, Joseph S Ross, Joshua D Wallach, 2021

Abstract:  Background/Aims:

Over the past decade, numerous data sharing platforms have been launched, providing access to de-identified individual patient-level data and supporting documentation. We evaluated the characteristics of prominent clinical data sharing platforms, including types of studies listed as available for request, data requests received, and rates of dissemination of research findings from data requests.

Methods:

We reviewed publicly available information listed on the websites of six prominent clinical data sharing platforms: Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Project Data Sphere, Supporting Open Access to Researchers–Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivli, and the Yale Open Data Access Project. We recorded key platform characteristics, including listed studies and available supporting documentation, information on the number and status of data requests, and rates of dissemination of research findings from data requests (i.e. publications in a peer-reviewed journals, preprints, conference abstracts, or results reported on the platform’s website).

Results:

The number of clinical studies listed as available for request varied among five data sharing platforms: Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (n?=?219), ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (n?=?2,897), Project Data Sphere (n?=?154), Vivli (n?=?5426), and the Yale Open Data Access Project (n?=?395); Supporting Open Access to Researchers did not provide a list of Bristol Myers Squibb studies available for request. Individual patient-level data were nearly always reported as being available for request, as opposed to only Clinical Study Reports (Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center?=?211/219 (96.3%); ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com?=?2884/2897 (99.6%); Project Data Sphere?=?154/154 (100.0%); and the Yale Open Data Access Project?=?355/395 (89.9%)); Vivli did not provide downloadable study metadata. Of 1201 data requests listed on ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Supporting Open Access to Researchers–Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivli, and the Yale Open Data Access Project platforms, 586 requests (48.8%) were approved (i.e. data access granted). The majority were for secondary analyses and/or developing/validating methods (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com?=?262/313 (83.7%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers–Bristol Myers Squibb?=?22/30 (73.3%); Vivli?=?63/84 (75.0%); the Yale Open Data Access Project?=?111/159 (69.8%)); four were for re-analyses or corroborations of previous research findings (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com?=?3/313 (1.0%) and the Yale Open Data Access Project?=?1/159 (0.6%)). Ninety-five (16.1%) approved data requests had results disseminated via peer-reviewed publications (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com?=?61/313 (19.5%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers–Bristol Myers Squibb?=?3/30 (10.0%); Vivli?=?4/84 (4.8%); the Yale Open Data Access Project?=?27/159 (17.0%)). Forty-two (6.8%) additional requests reported results through preprints, conference abstracts, or on the platform’s website (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com?=?12/313 (3.8%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers–Bristol Myers Squibb?=?3/30 (10.0%); Vivli?=?2/84 (2.4%); Yale Open Data Access Project?=?25/159 (15.7%)).

Conclusion:

Across six prominent clinical data sharing platforms, information on studies and request metrics varied in availability and format. Most data requests focused on secondary analyses and approximately one-quarter of all approved requests publicly disseminated their results. To further promote the use of shared clinical data, platforms should increase transparency, consistently clarify the availability of the listed studies and supporting documentation, and ensure that research findings from data requests are disseminated.

“STEM Abstracting and Indexing (A&I) Tool Overlap Analysis” by Joshua Borycz, Alexander J. Carroll et al.

Abstract:  Objectives: Compare journal coverage of abstract and indexing tools commonly used within academic science and engineering research.

Methods: Title lists of Compendex, Inspec, Reaxys, SciFinder, and Web of Science were provided by their respective publishers. These lists were imported into Excel and the overlap of the ISSN/EISSNs and journal titles was determined using the VLOOKUP command, which determines if the value in one cell can be found in a column of other cells.

Results: There is substantial overlap between the Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index, the largest database with 17,014 titles, and Compendex (63.6%), Inspec (71.0%), Reaxys (67.0%), and SciFinder (75.8%). SciFinder also overlaps heavily with Reaxys (75.9%). Web of Science and Compendex combined contain 77.6% of the titles within Inspec.

Conclusion: Flat or decreasing library budgets combined with increasing journal prices result in an unsustainable system that will require a calculated allocation of resources at many institutions. The overlap of commonly indexed journals among abstracting and indexing tools could serve as one way to determine how these resources should be allocated.

Clinical trial transparency and data sharing among biopharmaceutical companies and the role of company size, location and product type: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis | BMJ Open

Abstract:  Objectives To examine company characteristics associated with better transparency and to apply a tool used to measure and improve clinical trial transparency among large companies and drugs, to smaller companies and biologics.

Design Cross-sectional descriptive analysis.

Setting and participants Novel drugs and biologics Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2017 and their company sponsors.

Main outcome measures Using established Good Pharma Scorecard (GPS) measures, companies and products were evaluated on their clinical trial registration, results dissemination and FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) implementation; companies were ranked using these measures and a multicomponent data sharing measure. Associations between company transparency scores with company size (large vs non-large), location (US vs non-US) and sponsored product type (drug vs biologic) were also examined.

Results 26% of products (16/62) had publicly available results for all clinical trials supporting their FDA approval and 67% (39/58) had public results for trials in patients by 6 months after their FDA approval; 58% (32/55) were FDAAA compliant. Large companies were significantly more transparent than non-large companies (overall median transparency score of 95% (IQR 91–100) vs 59% (IQR 41–70), p<0.001), attributable to higher FDAAA compliance (median of 100% (IQR 88–100) vs 57% (0–100), p=0.01) and better data sharing (median of 100% (IQR 80–100) vs 20% (IQR 20–40), p<0.01). No significant differences were observed by company location or product type.

Conclusions It was feasible to apply the GPS transparency measures and ranking tool to non-large companies and biologics. Large companies are significantly more transparent than non-large companies, driven by better data sharing procedures and implementation of FDAAA trial reporting requirements. Greater research transparency is needed, particularly among non-large companies, to maximise the benefits of research for patient care and scientific innovation.

Clinical trial results for FDA-approved drugs often remain hidden, new study finds

“A team of American researchers examined 62 products by 42 pharma companies that gained FDA approval in 2016 and 2017. Collectively, these drugs and biologics were approved based on 1,017 clinical trials involving more than 187,000 participants….

Around a quarter of these trials were subject to the FDA Amendments Act, a transparency law that requires drug makers to register applicable trials on a public registry within 21 days of their start date, and to make their results public on the registry within 30 days of initial FDA approval of a product.

 

 

 

 

 

The study team found that 55 of the 62 FDA approvals included at least one clinical trial that was subject to the transparency law. However, in the case of 13 products, these trials did not consistently meet legal registration or reporting requirements.

Large pharma companies were far more likely to comply with the law. For example, Merck Sharp & Dohme was legally responsible for registering and reporting 27 trials, and fully complied in every single case. However, several other major players – Gilead, Johnson & Johnson / Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Shire – fell short of legal requirements.

 

 

Nonetheless, the study – which also covered companies’ data sharing policies – found that overall, there had been “sustained improvement” in pharma industry disclosure practices compared to previous years….”

 

Data sources and their effects on the measurement of open access. Comparing Dimensions with the Web of Science

With the amount of open access (OA) mandates at the funder and institution level growing, the accurate  measurement of OA publishing is an important policy question. Existing studies have provided estimates of the prevalence of OA publications ranging from 27.9% to 53.7%, depending on the data source and period of investigation. This paper aims at providing a comparison of the proportion of OA publishing as represented in two bibliometric databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Dimensions, and assess how it affects the measurement of OA across different countries. Results show that publications indexed in Dimensions have a higher percentage of OA than those indexed by the WoS, especially for publications from outside North America and Europe. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cause and consequences of these differences, motivating for the use of more inclusive databases when examining OA, especially for publications beyond North America and Europe.

Comparison of subscription access and open access obstetrics and gynecology journals in the SCImago database | Özay | Ginekologia Polska

Abstract:  Objectives:

 The aim of this study is to compare the annual SJR and to evaluate the other parameters that show the scientific effect of journals in terms of open access (OA) or subscription access (SA) in the field of obstetrics and gynecology according to the SCImago database.

Material and methods:This study was conducted between September-December 2019 at Near East University. The SCImago Journal & Country Rank database was used to collect information about the journals. We evaluated and compared the changes in the one-year SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) and journal impact factor (JIF) of OA and SA journals.

Results:Data from 183 scientific journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology from the period between 1999 and 2018 were evaluated, where 140 of these journals were SA and 43 were OA. The average SJR of OA journals in 1999 was 0.17, while it was 0.38 for SA journals. In 2018, these values were 0.31 and 0.78 for OA and SA journals, respectively. In the comparison of JIF, the average of the OA journals in 1999 was 0.09, while it was 0.66 for SA journals. In 2018, these values were 0.80 and 1.93 for OA and SA journals, respectively.

Conclusions:Access to information has become easier due to technological developments and this will continue to affect the access policies of journals. Despite the disadvantages of predator journals, the rise of OA journals in terms of number and quality is likely to continue.

Negotiating Open Access Journal Agreements: An Academic Library Case Study | Hosoi | Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice

Abstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an opportunity for academic libraries to advance open access (OA) to scholarly articles. Awareness among faculty on the importance of OA has increased significantly during the pandemic, as colleges and universities struggle financially and seek sustainable access to high-quality scholarly journals. Consortia have played an important role in establishing negotiation principles on OA journal agreements. While the number of OA agreements is increasing, case studies involving individual libraries are still limited. This paper reviews existing literature on publisher negotiation principles related to OA journal negotiations and reflects on recent cases at an academic library in Pennsylvania, in order to identify best practices in OA journal negotiations. It provides recommendations on roles, relationships, and processes, as well as essential terms of OA journal agreements. This study’s findings are most relevant to large academic libraries that are interested in negotiating with scholarly journal publishers independently or through consortia.

 

Coyle’s InFormation: Digitization Wars, Redux

“From 2004 to 2016 the book world (authors, publishers, libraries, and booksellers) was involved in the complex and legally fraught activities around Google’s book digitization project. Once known as “Google Book Search,” the company claimed that it was digitizing books to be able to provide search services across the print corpus, much as it provides search capabilities over texts and other media that are hosted throughout the Internet. 

Both the US Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers sued Google (both separately and together) for violation of copyright. These suits took a number of turns including proposals for settlements that were arcane in their complexity and that ultimately failed. Finally, in 2016 the legal question was decided: digitizing to create an index is fair use as long as only minor portions of the original text are shown to users in the form of context-specific snippets. 

We now have another question about book digitization: can books be digitized for the purpose of substituting remote lending in the place of the lending of a physical copy? This has been referred to as “Controlled Digital Lending (CDL),” a term developed by the Internet Archive for its online book lending services. The Archive has considerable experience with both digitization and providing online access to materials in various formats, and its Open Library site has been providing digital downloads of out of copyright books for more than a decade. Controlled digital lending applies solely to works that are presumed to be in copyright. …”

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials | BMC Medical Research Methodology | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown.

Methods

This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO’s established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results.

Results

Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16–76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9–34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%).

Conclusions

Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.