The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hidden concerns of sharing research data by low/middle-income country scientists
Open accessAbstract
data sharing practices within LMIC research institutions is vital for the development of an Open Data landscape in the Global South. Nonetheless, many LMICs have significant challenges - resource provision, research support and extra-laboratory infrastructures. These low-resourced environments shape data sharing activities, but are rarely examined within Open Data discourse. In particular, little attention is given to how these research environments shape scientists' perceptions of data sharing (dis)incentives. This paper expands on these issues of incentivizing data sharing, using data from a quantitative survey disseminated to life scientists in 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This interrogated not only perceptions of data sharing amongst LMIC scientists, but also how these are connected to the research environments and daily challenges experienced by them. The paper offers a series of analysis around commonly cited (dis)incentives such as data sharing as a means of improving research visibility; sharing and funding; and online connectivity. It identifies key areas that the Open Data community need to consider if true openness in research is to be established in the Global South.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Human resource constraints provide a substantial obstacle, notably a deficiency of qualified professionals, including medical physicists and radiologists.”
From Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [120]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In numerous low- and middle-income countries, healthcare practitioners sometimes have excessive clinical responsibilities, resulting in minimal capacity for data collecting, analysis, or research dissemination.120,121”
From Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [120]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · Cited by 18,423
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
The conundrum of sharing research data
Borgman, C. L. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22634 · Cited by 1,013
Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles
Eysenbach, G. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 · Cited by 829
Significance and Challenges of Big Data Research
Jin, X., Wah, B. W.-S., Cheng, X., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2015.01.006 · Cited by 779
Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor
Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V., Jorge, R. A., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.08-107938 · Cited by 559
Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing
Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1212540 · Cited by 433
Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact
Brody, T., Harnad, S. R., & Carr, L. A. (2006) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20373 · Cited by 403
Editors, T. P. M. (2006) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 · Cited by 373
Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impactPreprint
Priem, J. R., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1203.4745 · Cited by 360
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Harle J., 2011, Growing knowledge: Access to research in east and southern African Universities
- Peters I., 2015, 15th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 172
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Genome-wide association studies
Uffelmann, E., Huang, Q. Q., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., Okada, Y., Martin, A. R., Martin, H. C., Lappalainen, T., & Posthuma, D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00056-9 · Cited by 1,849
Kchouk, S., Melsen, L. A., Walker, D. W., & van Oel, P. R. (2022) · Natural hazards and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/nhess-22-323-2022 · Cited by 144
The Marine Plastic Litter Issue: A Social-Economic Analysis
Abalansa, S., Mahrad, B. E., Vondolia, G. K., Icely, J. D., & Newton, A. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12208677 · Cited by 146
Narratives and Counternarratives on Data Sharing in Africa
Abebe, R., Aruleba, K., Birhane, A., Kingsley, S., Obaido, G., Remy, S. L., & Sadagopan, S. (2021) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445897 · Cited by 135
The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence
Aczél, B., Barwich, A., Diekman, A. B., Fishbach, A., Goldstone, R. L., Gómez, P., Gundersen, O. E., von Hippel, P. T., Holcombe, A. O., Lewandowsky, S., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2401232121 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Bezuidenhout, L., & Chakauya, E.
- Affiliations
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- NEPAD-SANBio (Southern African Network of Biosciences), Pretoria, South Africa
- Corresponding author
- Bezuidenhout, Louise
- Venue
- Global Bioethics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-54
- ISSN
- 1128-7462 (ISSN-L)
- 1591-7398
- PMC
- PMC5827722
- OpenAlex
- W2789684428
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 16.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Global Bioethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- INASP
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
- Keywords
- research data sharing, open data, low- and middle-income countries, Global South, incentives and disincentives, life scientists, research infrastructure, research funding, internet access, research visibility, sub-Saharan Africa
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hidden concerns of sharing research data by low/middle-income country scientists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/11287462.2018.1441780
- The paper
- Bezuidenhout, L., & Chakauya, E. (2018). Hidden concerns of sharing research data by low/middle-income country scientists. Global Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1441780
