[open-science] Brief persuasive case for data sharing?

Fri Sep 3 23:54:24 UTC 2010

Hi Angus,

Good question.  Unfortunately I haven't looked at that.  That study was
pretty small and so only permitted a few covariates.

fwiw, I hope to look at it in the future.  As a result of my dissertation, I
now have a dataset that contains "number of authors" and 100+ other
covariates for 11,000 publications that created gene expression microarray
data, 25% of which shared have an associated dataset in public repositories.
 I need to gather citation data for all these publications, then will have a
comprehensive look at the citation benefit.  Just need more hours in the
day.  Or a collaborator!  The dataset is publicly
available<http://github.com/hpiwowar/Piwowar-Thesis-Aim3-2010>:)

Heather

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Angus Whyte <a.whyte at ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Heather,
>
> I wondered if you have found this association holding up independently of
> the number of authors?
>
> Angus Whyte,
> DCC
>
>
>
>
> On 03/09/2010 22:11, Heather Piwowar wrote:
>
> Thanks Dorothea!
>
>  That study was also published in PLoS ONE, in case you prefer a
> non-dissertation citation:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
>
>  Similar, but earlier and with a way cooler title, is Gleditsch and
> Strand's "Posting Your Data: Will You Be Scooped or Will You Be Famous?"
> http://www.prio.no/Research-and-Publications/Publication/?oid=55406
>
>  Chris, another argument I've often heard: publicly archive your data so
> that you can find it again later, yourself :)
>
>  There's also lots to be said about "being the change you want to
> see," supplemented with stats on the frequency and implications of data
> withholding, etc.  Let me know if you want refs, or you can brave a mongo
> list of refs on data sharing/withholding at Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/collections/3498871/Data-sharing-and-withholding/>.
>  I have many relevant papers tagged with "motivation" or similar.
>
>  You might also find something useful in the latter part of these
> presentations? (1<http://www.slideshare.net/hpiwowar/why-study-data-sharing-why-share-your-data%20>,
> 2<http://www.slideshare.net/hpiwowar/measuring-the-adoption-of-open-science-presentation>
> )
>
>  Let me know if I can be of more help....
>
>  Heather
>
> Heather Piwowar
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
> *
>
> DataONE postdoc with NESCent and Dryad
>
> **
>
> remote from Dept of Zoology, UBC, Vancouver Canada
>
> **
>
> hpiwowar at nescent.org
>
> ** **
>
> http://researchremix.org
>  ** **@researchremix
>
>  <http://twitter.com/researchremix>*
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Dorothea Salo <dorothea.salo at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Maybe try this:
>>
>> “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.” Piwowar, Heather.
>> “Foundational studies for measuring the impact, prevalence, and
>> patterns of publicly sharing biomedical research data.” Dissertation,
>> University of Pittsburgh, 2010.
>>
>> I just popped it into a slideshow of mine. I've also seen people use
>> the recent NYT story about data-sharing and Alzheimer's, though it's
>> not quite a paradigm case because the data there weren't fully open.
>>
>> Dorothea
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.orghttp://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100903/057e1cce/attachment-0001.html>