ArticlePloS one2025
The rise of open data practices among bioscientists at the University of Edinburgh.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Who Funds Open Data Sharing? Analysis of data availability statements in biomedical publications.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open science promotes the accessibility of scientific research and data, emphasising transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration. This study assesses the Openness and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) aspects of data-sharing practices within the biosciences at the University of Edinburgh from 2014 to 2023. We analysed 555 research papers across biotechnology, regenerative medicine, infectious diseases, and non-communicable diseases. Our scoring system evaluated data completeness, reusability, accessibility, and licensing, finding a progressive shift towards better data-sharing practices. The fraction of publications that share all relevant data increased significantly, from 7% in 2014 to 45% in 2023. Data involving genomic sequences were shared more frequently than image data or data on human subjects or samples. The presence of data availability statement (DAS) or preprint sharing correlated with more and better data sharing, particularly in terms of completeness. We discuss local and systemic factors underlying the current and future Open data sharing. Evaluating the automated ODDPub (Open Data Detection in Publications) tool on this manually-scored dataset demonstrated high specificity in identifying cases where no data was shared. ODDPub sensitivity improved with better documentation in the DAS. This positive trend highlights improvements in data-sharing, advocating for continued advances and addressing challenges with data types and documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.