Search

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to describe the process of linking Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) data with 2002 LibQUAL+ data and to address four analytical questions created by the AAHSL Task Force on Quality Assessment that relate both to user satisfaction and to services provided by AAHSL libraries. Methods: For the thirty-five AAHSL libraries that participated in the 2002 LibQUAL+ survey, nested effect of variance was analyzed using a linear mixed model. Using the Pearson correlation coefficient, this study explored four questions about the effect of user demographics on perceived levels of satisfaction with library services. Results: The supposition that library user satisfaction may differ according to library institutional reporting structure was unsupported. Regarding effect on mean overall satisfaction, size of library staff is not significant (P = 0.860), number of constituents is slightly significant (P = 0.027), and ratio of staff to constituents has a moderate and significant effect (P = 0.004). Conclusions: From a demographic perspective, the 2002 LibQUAL+ survey represents the largest cross section of AAHSL libraries. Increased understanding of how qualitative assessment can supplement quantitative data supports evidence-based decision-making and practice. It also could promote changes in data collection and usage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The research investigated topic priorities for data literacy training for biomedical researchers and staff. Methods: An electronic survey was used to assess researchers' level of knowledge related to data literacy skills and the relevance of these skills to their work. Results: Most respondents did not have any formal training in data literacy. Respondents considered most tasks highly relevant to their work but rated their expertise in tasks lower. Conclusion: Among this group, researchers have diverse data literacy training needs. Librarians' expertise makes them well suited to provide such training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Significant efforts are underway within the biomedical research community to encourage sharing and reuse of research data in order to enhance research reproducibility and enable scientific discovery. While some technological challenges do exist, many of the barriers to sharing and reuse are social in nature, arising from researchers’ concerns about and attitudes toward sharing their data. In addition, clinical and basic science researchers face their own unique sets of challenges to sharing data within their communities. This study investigates these differences in experiences with and perceptions about sharing data, as well as barriers to sharing among clinical and basic science researchers. Methods: Clinical and basic science researchers in the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Health were surveyed about their attitudes toward and experiences with sharing and reusing research data. Of 190 respondents to the survey, the 135 respondents who identified themselves as clinical or basic science researchers were included in this analysis. Odds ratio and Fisher’s exact tests were the primary methods to examine potential relationships between variables. Worst-case scenario sensitivity tests were conducted when necessary. Results and Discussion: While most respondents considered data sharing and reuse important to their work, they generally rated their expertise as low. Sharing data directly with other researchers was common, but most respondents did not have experience with uploading data to a repository. A number of significant differences exist between the attitudes and practices of clinical and basic science researchers, including their motivations for sharing, their reasons for not sharing, and the amount of work required to prepare their data. Conclusions: Even within the scope of biomedical research, addressing the unique concerns of diverse research communities is important to encouraging researchers to share and reuse data. Efforts at promoting data sharing and reuse should be aimed at solving not only technological problems, but also addressing researchers’ concerns about sharing their data. Given the varied practices of individual researchers and research communities, standardizing data practices like data citation and repository upload could make sharing and reuse easier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]