Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study.
cohort studies
database management systems
ethics
incentives
information dissemination
qualitative research
rewards
science policy
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 01 2022
13 01 2022
Historique:
received:
24
11
2020
accepted:
19
11
2021
revised:
14
03
2021
entrez:
13
1
2022
pubmed:
14
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data. The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. A total of 17 participants linked to European Union-funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues. The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor's work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research.
METHODS
A total of 17 participants linked to European Union-funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.
RESULTS
Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues.
CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor's work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35023849
pii: v24i1e25983
doi: 10.2196/25983
pmc: PMC8796038
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e25983Informations de copyright
©Thijs Devriendt, Pascal Borry, Mahsa Shabani. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 13.01.2022.
Références
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 14;12(9):e0184601
pubmed: 28910344
Sci Adv. 2017 Nov 08;3(11):e1700404
pubmed: 29152564
Genomics. 2015 Oct;106(4):193-5
pubmed: 26232606
Elife. 2017 Oct 30;6:
pubmed: 29082866
BMJ. 2020 Jun 25;369:m2081
pubmed: 32586791
JAMA. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):927-34
pubmed: 9062335
Health Care Women Int. 1992 Jul-Sep;13(3):313-21
pubmed: 1399871
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):1995-2022
pubmed: 31165383
Glob Bioeth. 2018 Feb 26;29(1):39-54
pubmed: 29503603
Science. 2020 Mar 20;367(6484):1308-1309
pubmed: 32193313
Epidemiology. 2009 Mar;20(2):172-4
pubmed: 19234412
Biopreserv Biobank. 2016 Jun;14(3):231-40
pubmed: 27200470
Acad Med. 2015 Oct;90(10):1302-8
pubmed: 25993282
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91 Suppl 3:61-7
pubmed: 19411501
N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 27;376(17):1684-1687
pubmed: 28402238
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Dec 15;182(12):977-9
pubmed: 26628513
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):1967-1993
pubmed: 31161378
Geo. 2015 Jun 30;2(1):12-16
pubmed: 26435842
Epidemiology. 2007 Jan;18(1):9-12
pubmed: 17179753
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2557-2560
pubmed: 29487213
Soc Stud Sci. 2020 Apr;50(2):175-197
pubmed: 32053062
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016 Aug;25(4):289-90
pubmed: 27150624
Account Res. 2021 Jan;28(1):23-43
pubmed: 32602379
Nature. 2015 Apr 23;520(7548):429-31
pubmed: 25903611
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 30;8(9):e76686
pubmed: 24098803
Soc Stud Sci. 2016 Jun;46(3):417-435
pubmed: 28948891
Nature. 2012 Sep 27;489(7417):475
pubmed: 23018928
Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Aug 16;2:63
pubmed: 29018840
Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105-12
pubmed: 14769454
Account Res. 2017;24(4):243-267
pubmed: 28128975
Soc Sci Inf (Paris). 2020 Mar 1;59(1):35-58
pubmed: 32255899
JAMA. 1997 Aug 20;278(7):579-85
pubmed: 9268280
Sci Technol Human Values. 2021 Mar 1;46(2):275-297
pubmed: 33518849