An official website of the United States government
AbstractManaging, processing, and sharing research data and experimental context produced on modern scientific instrumentation all present challenges to the materials research community. To address these issues, two MaRDA Working Groups on FAIR Data in Materials Microscopy Metadata and Materials Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) convened and generated recommended best practices regarding data handling in the materials research community. Overall, the Microscopy Metadata Group recommends (1) instruments should capture comprehensive metadata about operators, specimens/samples, instrument conditions, and data formation; and (2) microscopy data and metadata should use standardized vocabularies and community standard identifiers. The LIMS Group produced the following guides and recommendations: (1) a cost and benefit comparison when implementing LIMS; (2) summaries of prerequisite requirements, capabilities, and roles of LIMS stakeholders; and (3) a review of metadata schemas and information-storage best practices in LIMS. Together, the groups hope these recommendations will accelerate breakthrough scientific discoveries via FAIR data. Impact statementWith the deluge of data produced in today’s materials research laboratories, it is critical that researchers stay abreast of developments in modern research data management, particularly as it relates to the international effort to make data more FAIR – findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Most crucially, being able to responsibly share research data is a foundational means to increase progress on the materials research problems of high importance to science and society. Operational data management and accessibility are pivotal in accelerating innovation in materials science and engineering and to address mounting challenges facing our world, but the materials research community generally lags behind its cognate disciplines in these areas. To address this issue, the Materials Research Coordination Network (MaRCN) convened two working groups comprised of experts from across the materials data landscape in order to make recommendations to the community related to improvements in materials microscopy metadata standards and the use of Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) in materials research. This manuscript contains a set of recommendations from the working groups and reflects the culmination of their 18-month efforts, with the hope of promoting discussion and reflection within the broader materials research community in these areas. Graphical abstract
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 1, 2025
Recommendations for sharing network data and materials
Abstract One of the goals of open science is to promote the transparency and accessibility of research. Sharing data and materials used in network research is critical to these goals. In this paper, we present recommendations for whether, what, when, and where network data and materials should be shared. We recommend that network data and materials should be shared, but access to or use of shared data and materials may be restricted if necessary to avoid harm or comply with regulations. Researchers should share the network data and materials necessary to reproduce reported results via a publicly accessible repository when an associated manuscript is published. To ensure the adoption of these recommendations, network journals should require sharing, and network associations and academic institutions should reward sharing.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10580292
- Publisher / Repository:
- Cambridge University
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Network Science
- Volume:
- 12
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 2050-1242
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 404 to 417
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Sharing high-quality research data specifically for reuse in future work helps the scientific community progress by enabling researchers to build upon existing work and explore new research questions without duplicating data collection efforts. Because current discussions about research artifacts in Computer Security focus on reproducibility and availability of source code, the reusability of data is unclear. We examine data sharing practices in Computer Security and Measurement to provide resources and recommendations for sharing reusable data. Our study covers five years (2019–2023) and seven conferences in Computer Security and Measurement, identifying 948 papers that create a dataset as one of their contributions. We analyze the 265 accessible datasets, evaluating their under-standability and level of reuse. Our findings reveal inconsistent practices in data sharing structure and documentation, causing some datasets to not be shared effectively. Additionally, reuse of datasets is low, especially in fields where the nature of the data does not lend itself to reuse. Based on our findings, we offer data-driven recommendations and resources for improving data sharing practices in our community. Furthermore, we encourage authors to be intentional about their data sharing goals and align their sharing strategies with those goals.more » « less
-
There is strong agreement across the sciences that replicable workflows are needed for computational modeling. Open and replicable workflows not only strengthen public confidence in the sciences, but also result in more efficient community science. However, the massive size and complexity of geoscience simulation outputs, as well as the large cost to produce and preserve these outputs, present problems related to data storage, preservation, duplication, and replication. The simulation workflows themselves present additional challenges related to usability, understandability, documentation, and citation. These challenges make it difficult for researchers to meet the bewildering variety of data management requirements and recommendations across research funders and scientific journals. This paper introduces initial outcomes and emerging themes from the EarthCube Research Coordination Network project titled “What About Model Data? - Best Practices for Preservation and Replicability,” which is working to develop tools to assist researchers in determining what elements of geoscience modeling research should be preserved and shared to meet evolving community open science expectations. Specifically, the paper offers approaches to address the following key questions: • How should preservation of model software and outputs differ for projects that are oriented toward knowledge production vs. projects oriented toward data production? • What components of dynamical geoscience modeling research should be preserved and shared? • What curation support is needed to enable sharing and preservation for geoscience simulation models and their output? • What cultural barriers impede geoscience modelers from making progress on these topics?more » « less
-
The use of network analysis as a tool has increased exponentially as more clinical researchers see the benefits of network data for modeling of infectious disease transmission or translational activities in a variety of areas, including patient-caregiving teams, provider networks, patient-support networks, and adoption of health behaviors or treatments, to name a few. Yet, relational data such as network data carry a higher risk of deductive disclosure. Cases of reidentification have occurred and this is expected to become more common as computational ability increases. Recent data sharing policies aim to promote reproducibility, support replicability, and protect federal investment in the effort to collect these research data by making them available for secondary analyses. However, typical practices to protect individual-level clinical research data may not be sufficiently protective of participant privacy in the case of network data, nor in some cases do they permit secondary data analysis. When sharing data, researchers must balance security, accessibility, reproducibility, and adaptability (suitability for secondary analyses). Here, we provide background about applying network analysis to health and clinical research, describe the pros and cons of applying typical practices for sharing clinical data to network data, and provide recommendations for sharing network data.more » « less
-
As requirements for swift and sustainable data sharing are growing, questions of where and how researchers are sharing data are becoming increasingly important for institutions to answer. One of the goals of the Reality of Academic Data Sharing (RADS) Initiative, comprised of six academic institutions from the Data Curation Network (DCN), was to answer this question. This presentation will discuss the process of how RADS determined where data from our researchers are shared. To do this, we programmatically pulled DOIs from DataCite, making the naive assumption that the information we were collecting, the metadata fields we were utilizing, and the platforms we were using would present us with a neutral and unbiased view of where data from our affiliated researchers were shared. However, as we dug into the data, we found inconsistencies in the use and completeness of the necessary metadata fields for our questions, as well as differences in how DOIs were assigned across repositories. While we expected some differences, we did not anticipate these subtle differences would dramatically affect how we interpret the answer to the question of where data are shared. Our presentation will highlight examples in our work that show how these subtleties in the data are systematic and challenge our assumptions of neutrality of not just the data, but of our platforms and practices as well. By examining these biases, we are forced to reexamine the decisions behind how we practice and, as we move forward as information and repository managers, how to reduce bias or assumption of neutrality. As a community, we often rely on data-driven decisions and decision makers need to be aware of these biases, especially as we are likely to see increased investments due to the evolving data policies and practices.more » « less
