Advertisement

Are Papers with Open Data More Credible? An Analysis of Open Data Availability in Retracted PLoS Articles

  • Michael Lesk
  • Janice Bially Mattern
  • Heather Moulaison SandyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11420)

Abstract

Open data has been hailed as an important corrective for the credibility crisis in science. This paper makes an initial attempt to measure the relationship between open data and credible research by analyzing the number of retracted articles with attached or open data in an open access science journal. Using Retraction Watch, retracted papers published in PLoS between 2014 and 2018 are identified. Of the 152 total retracted papers, fewer than 15% attached their data. Since about half of the published articles have open data, and so few of the retracted ones do, we put forth the preliminary notion that open data, especially high quality and well-curated data, might imply scientific credibility.

Keywords

Retractions Open data Credibility 

References

  1. Begley, C.G., Ellis, L.M.: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamin, D.J., et al.: Redefine statistical significance, 22 July 2017.  https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mky9j
  3. Bohannon, J.: Many psychology papers fail replication test. Science 349(6251), 910–911 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolukbasi, B., et al.: Open data: crediting a culture of cooperation. Science 342(6162), 1041–1042 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnell, D.A., et al.: Recycling is not always good: the dangers of self-plagiarism. ACS Nano 6(1), 1–4 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1021/nn3000912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgman, C.L.: The conundrum of sharing research data. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(6), 1059–1078 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C.F., et al.: Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 637–644 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassidy, J.: The Reinhart and Rogoff Controversy: A Summing Up. The New Yorker, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  9. Editorial and Publishing Policies. PLoS (2018). https://www.plos.org/editorial-publishing-policies
  10. Fecher, B., Friesike, S., Hebing, M.: What drives academic data sharing? PLoS ONE 10(2), e0118053 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gewin, V.: Data sharing: an open mind on open data. Nature 529(7584), 117–119 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7584-117aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidorn, P.B.: The emerging role of libraries in data curation and e-science. J. Libr. Adm. 51, 662–672 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kønig, N., Børsen, T., Emmeche, C.: The ethos of post-normal science. Futures 91, 12–24 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Labbé, C., Labbé, D., Portet, F.: Detection of computer generated papers in scientific literature  <hal-01134598> (2015). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01134598
  15. Leeming, J.: How will open data advance scientific discovery?  Naturejobs Blog (2017). http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/10/25/how-will-open-data-advance-scientific-discovery/. Accessed 9 May 2018
  16. Marcus, A., Oransky, I.: What’s Behind Big Science Frauds? The New York Times, New York (2015). https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/opinion/whats-behind-big-science-frauds.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. Molloy, J.C.: The Open Knowledge Foundation: open data means better science. PLoS Biol. 9(12), e1001195 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. The National Science Foundation Open government plan: 4.0, September 2016. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16131/nsf16131.pdf
  19. Nelson, B.: Data sharing: empty archives. Nature 461, 160–163 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1038/461160aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peer, L.: Reproducible research practices at ISPS, 30 April 2018. https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2018/05/reproducible-research-practices-at-isps
  21. Piwowar, H.A., Vision, T.J.: Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ: Bioinformatics and Genomics section, 1 October 2013Google Scholar
  22. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., Asadullah, K.: Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rekdal, O.B.: Academic urban legends. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44(4), 638–654 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714535679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadiq, S., Marta Indulska, M.: Open data: quality over quantity. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 37, 150–154 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S.: What is science’s crisis really about? Futures 91, 5–11 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M.: What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures 91, 62–71 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sayre, F., Riegelman, A.: The reproducibility crisis and academic libraries. Coll. Res. Libr. 79(1), 2 (2018). https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16846/18452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tenopir, C., et al.: Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS One, 29 June 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101
  29. Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J.: Potential dangers with open access data files in the expanding open data movement. Publ. Res. Q. 31, 298–305 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9420-9
  30. Van Noorden, R.: Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers: conference proceedings removed from subscription databases after scientist reveals that they were computer-generated. Nature News (February 24, 2014; Updated February 25, 2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Villanova UniversityVillanovaUSA
  3. 3.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations