Abstract
Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 106193 |
| Journal | Addictive Behaviors |
| Volume | 102 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 2020 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Data sharing
- Randomized controlled trials
- Research methodology
Cite this
}
Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions. / Vassar, Matt; Jellison, Sam; Wendelbo, Hannah; Wayant, Cole.
In: Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 102, 106193, 03.2020.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions
AU - Vassar, Matt
AU - Jellison, Sam
AU - Wendelbo, Hannah
AU - Wayant, Cole
PY - 2020/3
Y1 - 2020/3
N2 - Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.
AB - Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.
KW - Data sharing
KW - Randomized controlled trials
KW - Research methodology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075278779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106193
DO - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106193
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85075278779
VL - 102
JO - Addictive Behaviors
JF - Addictive Behaviors
SN - 0306-4603
M1 - 106193
ER -