Correction: Seek and you may (not) find: A multi-institutional analysis of where research data are shared.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302426.].

Seek and you may (not) find: A multi-institutional analysis of where research data are shared.

Research data sharing has become an expected component of scientific research and scholarly publishing practice over the last few decades, due in part to requirements for federally funded research. As part of a larger effort to better understand the workflows and costs of public access to research data, this project conducted a high-level analysis of where academic research data is most frequently shared. To do this, we leveraged the DataCite and Crossref application programming interfaces (APIs) in search of Publisher field elements demonstrating which data repositories were utilized by researchers from six academic research institutions between 2012-2022. In addition, we also ran a preliminary analysis of the quality of the metadata associated with these published datasets, comparing the extent to which information was missing from metadata fields deemed important for public access to research data. Results show that the top 10 publishers accounted for 89.0% to 99.8% of the datasets connected with the institutions in our study. Known data repositories, including institutional data repositories hosted by those institutions, were initially lacking from our sample due to varying metadata standards and practices. We conclude that the metadata quality landscape for published research datasets is uneven; key information, such as author affiliation, is often incomplete or missing from source data repositories and aggregators. To enhance the findability, interoperability, accessibility, and reusability (FAIRness) of research data, we provide a set of concrete recommendations that repositories and data authors can take to improve scholarly metadata associated with shared datasets.

Understanding the value of curation: A survey of US data repository curation practices and perceptions.

Data curators play an important role in assessing data quality and take actions that may ultimately lead to better, more valuable data products. This study explores the curation practices of data curators working within US-based data repositories. We performed a survey in January 2021 to benchmark the levels of curation performed by repositories and assess the perceived value and impact of curation on the data sharing process. Our analysis included 95 responses from 59 unique data repositories. Respondents primarily were professionals working within repositories and examined curation performed within a repository setting. A majority 72.6% of respondents reported that "data-level" curation was performed by their repository and around half reported their repository took steps to ensure interoperability and reproducibility of their repository's datasets. Curation actions most frequently reported include checking for duplicate files, reviewing documentation, reviewing metadata, minting persistent identifiers, and checking for corrupt/broken files. The most "value-add" curation action across generalist, institutional, and disciplinary repository respondents was related to reviewing and enhancing documentation. Respondents reported high perceived impact of curation by their repositories on specific data sharing outcomes including usability, findability, understandability, and accessibility of deposited datasets; respondents associated with disciplinary repositories tended to perceive higher impact on most outcomes. Most survey participants strongly agreed that data curation by the repository adds value to the data sharing process and that it outweighs the effort and cost. We found some differences between institutional and disciplinary repositories, both in the reported frequency of specific curation actions as well as the perceived impact of data curation. Interestingly, we also found variation in the perceptions of those working within the same repository regarding the level and frequency of curation actions performed, which exemplifies the complexity of a repository curation work. Our results suggest data curation may be better understood in terms of specific curation actions and outcomes than broadly defined curation levels and that more research is needed to understand the resource implications of performing these activities. We share these results to provide a more nuanced view of curation, and how curation impacts the broader data lifecycle and data sharing behaviors.

The 12 city HIV Surveillance Survey among MSM in Brazil 2016 using respondent-driven sampling: a description of methods and RDS diagnostics / Inquérito sobre o HIV entre HSH no Brasil em 2016 usando respondent-driven sampling (RDS): descrição dos métodos e dos diagnósticos do RDS

ABSTRACT: Introduction: This paper details the methods used in the second national Biological and Behavioral Surveillance Survey (BBSS) of HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis B and C among men who have sex with men in Brazil. Methods: Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) was used in 12 cities in 2016. The targeted sample size was initiated with five to six seeds in each city. HIV, syphilis, and Hepatitis B and C rapid tests were offered to participants. RDS Analyst with Gile's successive sampling (SS) estimator was used to adjust results as recommended and a weight for each individual was generated for further analysis. Data for the 12 cities were merged and analyzed using Stata 14.0 complex survey data tools with each city treated as its own stratum. Results: Duration of data collection varied from 5.9 to 17.6 weeks. 4,176 men were recruited in the 12 cities. Two sites failed to achieve targeted sample size due to a six-month delay in local IRB approval. No city failed to reach convergence in our major outcome variable (HIV). Conclusion: The comprehensive BBSS was completed as planned and on budget. The description of methods here is more detailed than usual, due to new diagnostic tools and requirements of the new STROBE-RDS guidelines.

RESUMO: Introdução: Este artigo detalha os métodos utilizados na segunda Pesquisa Nacional de Vigilância Biológica e Comportamental (BBSS) do HIV, sífilis e hepatite B e C entre os homens que fazem sexo com homens no Brasil. Métodos: O método Respondent-driven Sampling (RDS) foi utilizado em 12 cidades em 2016. A amostra foi iniciada com cinco a seis sementes em cada cidade. Testes rápidos para o HIV, sífilis e Hepatite B e C foram oferecidos aos participantes. O software RDS Analyst com o estimador de amostragem sucessiva (SS) de Gile foi utilizado para ajustar os resultados como recomendado, gerando um peso para cada indivíduo para análises. Osdados das 12cidades foram unidos em um único banco e analisados usando as ferramentas de dados complexos do Stata 14.0, com cada cidade sendo tratada como seu próprio estrato. Resultados: A duração da coleta de dados variou de 5,9 a 17,6 semanas e 4.176 homens foram recrutados nas 12 cidades. Dois sites não alcançaram o tamanho da amostra alvo devido a uma demora de seis meses na aprovação local do Comitê de Ética. Todas as cidades atingiram a convergência na principal variável estudada (HIV). Conclusão: O BBSS foi representativo e concluído conforme planejado e dentro do orçamento. A descrição dos métodos aqui é mais detalhada do que o habitual, devido às novas ferramentas e requisitos de diagnóstico das novas diretrizes do STROBE-RDS.