Anderson J Michael, Johnson Austin, Rauh Shelby, Johnson Bradley, Bouvette Max, Pinero Isabel, Beaman Jason, Vassar Matt
Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University.
University of Oklahoma.
J Sci Pract Integr. 2022;2022. doi: 10.35122/001c.35597. Epub 2022 May 19.
We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing.
Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses.
We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members "somewhat agree" that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts [M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were "secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)" [M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56] and "increased transparency" [M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included "lack of metadata standards" [M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36], "no incentive" [M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57], "inadequate resources" [M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63], and "protection of privacy"[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36].
Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals' data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted.
我们对成瘾领域期刊的编辑委员会成员进行了调查，以更好地了解他们对数据共享的看法。
调查问卷项目包括李克特式（例如，1至5分制）、多项选择和自由回答问题。在期刊网站上搜索编辑委员会成员的姓名和电子邮件地址。通过SurveyMonkey发送电子邮件。使用描述性统计来描述调查结果。
我们收到了178份回复（共发送1039份；回复率为17.1%）。其中，174人同意参与我们的研究（同意率为97.8%）。大多数受访者不知道他们所在的期刊是否有数据共享政策。编辑委员会成员“ somewhat agree”（有点同意）成瘾领域期刊应该推荐但不要求投稿稿件进行数据共享[平均值M = 4.09（标准差SD = 0.06）；95%置信区间CI：3.97 - 4.22]。认为益处评分最高的项目是“二次数据使用（例如，荟萃分析）”[平均值M = 3.44（标准差SD = 0.06）；95%置信区间CI：3.31 - 3.56]和“提高透明度”[平均值M = 3.29（标准差SD = 0.07）；95%置信区间CI：3.14 - 3.43]。被认为是数据共享最大障碍的项目包括“缺乏元数据标准”[平均值M = 3.21（标准差SD = 0.08）；95%置信区间CI：3.06 - 3.36]、“没有激励措施”[平均值M = 3.43（标准差SD = 0.07）；95%置信区间CI：3.30 - 3.57]、“资源不足”[平均值M = 3.53（标准差SD = 0.05）；95%置信区间CI：3.42 - 3.63]以及“隐私保护”[平均值M = 3.22（标准差SD = 0.07）；95%置信区间CI：3.07 - 3.36]。
我们的结果表明，成瘾领域期刊的编辑委员会成员认为数据共享在研究界具有一定的重要性。然而，大多数编辑委员会成员不知道他们所在期刊的数据共享政策，并且大多数情况下数据共享应该是推荐而非要求。未来有必要进一步努力，以更好地了解对数据共享的常见保留意见和益处，以及在将潜在风险降至最低的同时优化数据共享的途径。
