Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints.

Replications are important for assessing the reliability of published findings. However, they are costly, and it is infeasible to replicate everything. Accurate, fast, lower-cost alternatives such as eliciting predictions could accelerate assessment for rapid policy implementation in a crisis and help guide a more efficient allocation of scarce replication resources.

What do Australians affected by cancer think about oncology researchers sharing research data? A cross-sectional survey.

Aim: Previous research has shown patients and the public in Australia generally support medical researchers in making de-identified research data available to other scientists. However, this research has focussed on certain types of data and recipients. We surveyed Australians affected by cancer to characterize their attitudes toward the sharing of research data with multiple third parties, including the public.

Computationally reproducing results from meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology using shared code and data.

Many journals in ecology and evolutionary biology encourage or require authors to make their data and code available alongside articles. In this study we investigated how often this data and code could be used together, when both were available, to computationally reproduce results published in articles. We surveyed the data and code sharing practices of 177 meta-analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology journals published between 2015-17: 60% of articles shared data only, 1% shared code only, and 15% shared both data and code.

Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.

Background: Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.

Methods: We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.

Results: We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not.