A survey of researchers' methods sharing practices and priorities.

Missing or inaccessible information about the methods used in scientific research slows the pace of discovery and hampers reproducibility. Yet little is known about how, why, and under what conditions researchers share detailed methods information, or about how such practices vary across social categories like career stage, field, and region. In this exploratory study, we surveyed 997 active researchers about their attitudes and behaviors with respect to methods sharing.

A survey of researchers' code sharing and code reuse practices, and assessment of interactive notebook prototypes.

This research aimed to understand the needs and habits of researchers in relation to code sharing and reuse; gather feedback on prototype code notebooks created by NeuroLibre; and help determine strategies that publishers could use to increase code sharing. We surveyed 188 researchers in computational biology. Respondents were asked about how often and why they look at code, which methods of accessing code they find useful and why, what aspects of code sharing are important to them, and how satisfied they are with their ability to complete these tasks.

The citation advantage of linking publications to research data.

Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing such links.

Publishers' Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility.

Scholarly publishers can help to increase data quality and reproducible research by promoting transparency and openness. Increasing transparency can be achieved by publishers in six key areas: (1) understanding researchers' problems and motivations, by conducting and responding to the findings of surveys; (2) raising awareness of issues and encouraging behavioural and cultural change, by introducing consistent journal policies on sharing research data, code and materials; (3) improving the quality and objectivity of the peer-review process by implementing reporting guidelines and checklists and using technology to identify misconduct; (4) improving scholarly communication infrastructure with journals that publish all scientifically sound research, promoting study registration, partnering with data repositories and providing services that improve data sharing and data curation; (5) increasing incentives for practising open research with data journals and software journals and implementing data citation and badges for transparency; and (6) making research communication more open and accessible, with open-access publishing options, permitting text and data mining and sharing publisher data and metadata and through industry and community collaboration. This chapter describes practical approaches being taken by publishers, in these six areas, their progress and effectiveness and the implications for researchers publishing their work.

Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations.

Sharing of experimental clinical research data usually happens between individuals or research groups rather than via public repositories, in part due to the need to protect research participant privacy. This approach to data sharing makes it difficult to connect journal articles with their underlying datasets and is often insufficient for ensuring access to data in the long term. Voluntary data sharing services such as the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) and Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR) projects have increased accessibility to clinical datasets for secondary uses while protecting patient privacy and the legitimacy of secondary analyses but these resources are generally disconnected from journal articles-where researchers typically search for reliable information to inform future research.

Predictors of clinical trial data sharing: exploratory analysis of a cross-sectional survey.

Background: A number of research funders, biomedical journals, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies have adopted policies advocating or mandating that clinical trialists share data with external investigators. We therefore sought to determine whether certain characteristics of trialists or their trials are associated with more unfavorable perceptions of data sharing. To date, no prior research has addressed this issue.

Licensing the future: report on BioMed Central's public consultation on open data in peer-reviewed journals.

We report the outcomes of BioMed Central's public consultation on implementing open data-compliant licensing in peer-reviewed open access journals. Respondents (42) to the 2012 consultation were six to one in favor (29 in support; 5 against; 8 abstentions) of changing our authors' default open access copyright license agreement, to introduce the Creative Commons CC0 public domain waiver for data published in BioMed Central's journals. We summarize the different questions we received in response to the consultation and our responses to them - matters such as citation, plagiarism, patient privacy, and commercial use were raised.

Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey.

Objective: To investigate clinical trialists' opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team.

Design And Setting: Cross sectional, web based survey.

Participants: Clinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011.

Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals.

Copyright and licensing of scientific data, internationally, are complex and present legal barriers to data sharing, integration and reuse, and therefore restrict the most efficient transfer and discovery of scientific knowledge. Much data are included within scientific journal articles, their published tables, additional files (supplementary material) and reference lists. However, these data are usually published under licenses which are not appropriate for data.

Five years of Trials.

This editorial marks the launch of a special collection of articles highlighting 'Five years of Trials' (http://www.trialsjournal.com/series/5years).

The ISRCTN Register: achievements and challenges 8 years on.

The ISRCTN register has been operational for the past 8 years and is approaching 10,000 trial records. It complies with international guidelines and pools its data in the International Trial Search Portal initiated by the World Health Organisation. Through its ongoing collaboration with the Department of Health in England, the register has been able to participate in a national initiative aiming to bring clinical trials to the attention of a wider public with the objective of maximising participation.

A call for BMC Research Notes contributions promoting best practice in data standardization, sharing and publication.

BMC Research Notes aims to ensure that data files underlying published articles are made available in standard, reusable formats, and the journal is calling for contributions from the scientific community to achieve this goal. Educational Data Notes included in this special series should describe a domain-specific data standard and provide an example data set with the article, or a link to data that are permanently hosted elsewhere. The contributions should also provide some evidence of the data standard's application and preparation guidance that could be used by others wishing to conduct similar experiments.

Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers.

In recognition of the benefits of transparent reporting, many peer-reviewed journals require that their authors be prepared to share their raw, unprocessed data with other scientists and/or state the availability of raw data in published articles. But little information on how data should be prepared for publication - or sharing - has emerged. In clinical research patient privacy and consent for use of personal health information are key considerations, but agreed-upon definitions of what constitutes anonymised patient information do not appear to have been established.

Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers.

Many peer reviewed journals now require authors to be prepared to share their raw, unprocessed data with other scientists or state the availability of raw data in published articles, but little information on how such data should be prepared for sharing has emerged. propose a minimum standard for de-identifying datasets to ensure patient privacy when sharing clinical research data

Towards agreement on best practice for publishing raw clinical trial data.

Many research-funding agencies now require open access to the results of research they have funded, and some also require that researchers make available the raw data generated from that research. Similarly, the journal Trials aims to address inadequate reporting in randomised controlled trials, and in order to fulfil this objective, the journal is working with the scientific and publishing communities to try to establish best practice for publishing raw data from clinical trials in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Common issues encountered when considering raw data for publication include patient privacy - unless explicit consent for publication is obtained - and ownership, but agreed-upon policies for tackling these concerns do not appear to be addressed in the guidance or mandates currently established.