Abstract
Objectives To audit all publications produced by Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital researchers regarding open science practices and to survey Neuro-based researchers about barriers and facilitators to data sharing.
Setting, design and participants In the first study, we retrieved 313 unique publications and collated all Neuro publications from 2019 and extracted information from each article pertaining to data sharing and other open science practices. We included all empirical papers and pre-prints that were reported in English. In the second study, one hundred twenty-four participants (out of 553) completed the survey, a response rate of 22.42%. We surveyed all Neuro researchers.
Primary and secondary outcomes for the audit we examined data sharing and open science practices. For the survey, we asked participants about their data sharing practices.
Results We found that 66.5% of these publications (n=208) included a data sharing statement. Overall, 74.5% (n=155) of articles had data that was publicly available. When examining broader open science practices, rates of compliance tended to be lower. For example, 94.9% (n=297) of publications failed to register a protocol. Among participants who had published a first or last authored paper in the past year, most participants, 53 of 74 (71.62%), reported that they had openly shared their research data. Less than half of the participants 37.50% (n=45) reported having engaged in training related to data sharing within the last 12 months.
Conclusion We found that half of all publications included in the audit shared data. Participants indicated an appetite for resources for learning about data sharing signaling a willingness to perform better.
Strengths and limitations of this study
To serve as a baseline to benchmark for improvements in data sharing and other open science practices
To measure progress over time.
The results of the study cannot be generalized.
It is hard to measure changes in the community.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors received funds from Tanenbaum Open Science Institute to complete the project.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (TOSI). There is no grant number associated with this award.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/REB of Ottawa Health Science Research Network Research Ethics Board gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All study data and materials have been made publicly available: https://osf.io/swyvc/.
