Cited by 495Research Data Management PracticesData Analysis and ArchivingScientific Computing and Data Management

If We Share Data, Will Anyone Use Them? Data Sharing and Reuse in the Long Tail of Science and Technology

Open access
Wallis, Jillian C., Rolando, Elizabeth, Borgman, Christine L.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Research on practices to share and reuse data will inform the design of infrastructure to support data collection, management, and discovery in the long tail of science and technology. These are research domains in which data tend to be local in character, minimally structured, and minimally documented. We report on a ten-year study of the Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. We found that CENS researchers are willing to share their data, but few are asked to do so, and in only a few domain areas do their funders or journals require them to deposit data. Few repositories exist to accept data in CENS research areas.. Data sharing tends to occur only through interpersonal exchanges. CENS researchers obtain data from repositories, and occasionally from registries and individuals, to provide context, calibration, or other forms of background for their studies. Neither CENS researchers nor those who request access to CENS data appear to use external data for primary research questions or for replication of studies. CENS researchers are willing to share data if they receive credit and retain first rights to publish their results. Practices of releasing, sharing, and reusing of data in CENS reaffirm the gift culture of scholarship, in which goods are bartered between trusted colleagues rather than treated as commodities.

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.0067332

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Many sources of data remain siloed, unstructured, and/or unavailable for complementary and secondary research.

    “However, many sources of data remain siloed, unstructured, and/or unavailable for complementary and secondary research.”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Wallis et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [31]Lyman P (1996) What Is a Digital Library? Technical, Intellectual Property, and the Public Interest. Daedalus 125: 1– 33 Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027384. Accessed 2013 Apr 2.
  2. [46]Lynch C (2008) Big data: How do your data grow? Nature 455: 28– 29 doi: 10.1038/455028a 18769419 · DOI
  3. [69]National Center for Biotechnology Information (n.d.) GenBank Overview. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/. Accessed 2013 Apr 2.
  4. [76]Mandell RA (2012) A New Tool for Managing and Discovering Research Data: Creating the UCLA Data Registry. Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) Proceedings. Zadar, Croatia, Vol. 12. Available: http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida2012/article/view/59/43. Accessed 2013 Apr 2.
  5. [89]Van House NA, Butler MH, Schiff LR (1998) Cooperative knowledge work and practices of trust ACM Press. pp. 335–343. Available: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=289444.289508. Accessed 2012 Aug 31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wallis, J. C., Rolando, E., & Borgman, C. L.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Wallis, Jillian C.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-07-23
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e67332
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003423696
Cited by
495
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 3
FWCI
84.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0830976, 0120778, 0750529, CCR-012-0778)
  • Smithsonian Institution
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
data sharing, data reuse, data repositories, data registry, research funding requirements, data management infrastructure, replication
MeSH terms
Humans, Motivation, Research Personnel, Science, Technology, Information Dissemination

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