↓ Skip to main content

Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
100 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0108451
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Hong Kong 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 51 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 30%
Librarian 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Computer Science 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 17 30%
Unknown 7 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#516,284
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#6,638
of 224,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,192
of 295,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#151
of 5,463 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,463 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.