CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 881Research Data Management Practicesscientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate

Open access
Piwowar, Heather A., Day, Roger S., Fridsma, Douglas B.·2007·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0000308PMC PMC1817752
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression. SIGNIFICANCE: This correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0000308

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Distribution of 2004–2005 citation counts of 85 trials by data availability. The 41 clinical trial publications which publicly shared their microarray data received more citations, in general, than the 44 publications which did not share their microarray data. In this plot of the distribution of citation counts received by each publication, the extent of the box encompasses the interquartile range of the citation counts, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range, and lines within the boxes represent medians.
Figure 1 Distribution of 2004–2005 citation counts of 85 trials by data availability. The 41 clinical trial publications which publicly shared their microarray data received more citations, in general, than the 44 publications which did not share their microarray data. In this plot of the distribution of citation counts received by each publication, the extent of the box encompasses the interquartile range of the citation counts, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range, and lines within the boxes represent medians.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Distribution of 2004–2005 citation counts of the 70 lower-profile trials by data availability. For trials which were published after 2000 and in journals with an impact factor less than 25, the 27 clinical trial publications which publicly shared their microarray data received more citations, in general, than the 43 publications which did not share their microarray data. In this plot of the distribution of citation counts received by each publication, the extent of the box encompasses the interquartile range of the citation counts, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range, and lines within the boxes represent medians.
Figure 2 Distribution of 2004–2005 citation counts of the 70 lower-profile trials by data availability. For trials which were published after 2000 and in journals with an impact factor less than 25, the 27 clinical trial publications which publicly shared their microarray data received more citations, in general, than the 43 publications which did not share their microarray data. In this plot of the distribution of citation counts received by each publication, the extent of the box encompasses the interquartile range of the citation counts, whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range, and lines within the boxes represent medians.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 39 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–878 of 878

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Piwowar, H. A., Day, R. S., & Fridsma, D. B.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Piwowar, Heather A.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2007-03-21
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
e308
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
PMC
PMC1817752
OpenAlex
W2046766973
Cited by
881
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 40
FWCI
50.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007059)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
research data sharing, data availability, citation impact, public data, journal impact factor
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Neoplasms, Periodicals as Topic, Publications, Regression Analysis, Internet, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Information Dissemination, Biomedical Research, Journal Impact Factor

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