The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ecological data sharing
Open accessAbstract
Data sharing is the practice of making data available for use by others. Ecologists are increasingly generating and sharing an immense volume of data. Such data may serve to augment existing data collections and can be used for synthesis efforts such as meta-analysis, for parameterizing models, and for verifying research results (i.e., study reproducibility). Large volumes of ecological data may be readily available through institutions or data repositories that are the most comprehensive available and can serve as the core of ecological analysis. Ecological data are also employed outside the research context and are used for decision-making, natural resource management, education, and other purposes. Data sharing has a long history in many domains such as oceanography and the biodiversity sciences (e.g., taxonomic data and museum specimens), but has emerged relatively recently in the ecological sciences. A review of several of the large international and national ecological research programs that have emerged since the mid-1900s highlights the initial failures and more recent successes as well as the underlying causes—from a near absence of effective policies to the emergence of community and data sharing policies coupled with the development and adoption of data and metadata standards and enabling tools. Sociocultural change and the move towards more open science have evolved more rapidly over the past two decades in response to new requirements set forth by governmental organizations, publishers and professional societies. As the scientific culture has changed so has the cyberinfrastructure landscape. The introduction of community-based data repositories, data and metadata standards, software tools, persistent identifiers, and federated search and discovery have all helped promulgate data sharing. Nevertheless, there are many challenges and opportunities especially as we move towards more open science. Cyberinfrastructure challenges include a paucity of easy-to-use metadata management systems, significant difficulties in assessing data quality and provenance, and an absence of analytical and visualization approaches that facilitate data integration and harmonization. Challenges and opportunities abound in the sociocultural arena where funders, researchers, and publishers all have a stake in clarifying policies, roles and responsibilities, as well as in incentivizing data sharing. A set of best practices and examples of software tools are presented that can enable research transparency, reproducibility and new knowledge by facilitating idea generation, research planning, data management and the dissemination of data and results.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Individual and systematic barriers hinder ecological information sharing (Michener, 2015)”
From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Michener, 2015
In the citing paper
“Firstly, the calls for transparency are not always easily achieved.”
From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Michener, 2015
Citations
Cites
Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research
Robertson, G. P. (1999) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195120837.001.0001 · Cited by 1,904
Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-6175 · Cited by 1,551
Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions
Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., Manoff, M., & Frame, M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101 · Cited by 1,432
Big data and the future of ecology
Hampton, S. E., Strasser, C. A., Tewksbury, J. J., Gram, W. K., Budden, A. E., Batcheller, A. L., Duke, C. S., & Porter, J. H. (2013) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/120103 · Cited by 930
Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate
Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 · Cited by 881
Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
Keeling, C. D., Bacastow, R. B., Bainbridge, A. E., Ekdahl, C. A., Guenther, P. R., Waterman, L. S., & Chin, J. F. S. (1976) · Tellus · doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1976.tb00701.x · Cited by 794
Data Withholding in Academic Genetics
Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., & Blumenthal, D. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.4.473 · Cited by 491
Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data-intensive science
Michener, W. K., & Jones, M. B. (2012) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.016 · Cited by 458
Self-citationGrassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-3901 · Cited by 404
Piwowar, H. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/493159a · Cited by 398
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Juday, 1946, List of publications dealing with Wisconsin limnology 1871–1945, Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett., 36, 469
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring
Chandler, M., See, L., Copas, K., Bonde, A. M., López, B., Danielsen, F., Legind, J. K., Masinde, S., Miller-Rushing, A., Newman, G., et al. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004 · Cited by 798
How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., et al. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.16800 · Cited by 798
Standards and Best Practices for Monitoring and Benchmarking Insects
Montgomery, G. A., Belitz, M. W., Guralnick, R., & Tingley, M. W. (2021) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.579193 · Cited by 322
Smart Earth: A meta-review and implications for environmental governance
Bakker, K., & Ritts, M. (2018) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.011 · Cited by 244
Open science, reproducibility, and transparency in ecology
Powers, S. M., & Hampton, S. E. (2018) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.1822 · Cited by 242
Metadata
- Authors
- Michener, W. K.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Corresponding author
- Michener, William K.
- ORCID
- Michener, William K.
- Venue
- Ecological Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 29
- Pages
- 33-44
- ISSN
- 1574-9541 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W855927983
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11
- FWCI
- 50.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ecological Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- NSF (IIA-1301346, IIA-1329470, ACI-1430508)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
- Keywords
- data repositories, open science, metadata standards, data quality, data provenance, cyberinfrastructure, research reproducibility, data sharing policy, persistent identifiers, research transparency, data management, natural resource management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review