Are scientists sharing data?

Webcite?|MRC large scale data sharing report 2005|Instruction2Authors|others on DS|科学研究

=Present status of data sharing --a review--=
 * http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024357

Who Shares? Who Doesn't? Factors Associated with Openly Archiving Raw Research Data by Piwowar
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018657  Some journals require the submission of detailed biomedical datasets to publicly available databases as a condition of publication [1], [2]. "A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource.The results of examining approximately 850 natural science, medical, and engineering journals were that 132 have at least 1 policy statement concerning deposition of sequence or structure data in a data bank before publication; deposition or sharing of research materials upon request; and availability of supplementary publication services. (65 references) (Author/AEF)"
 * 1) Starting article "研究データを公開しているのは誰か？ していないのは誰か？（文献紹介） " で紹介されているレビュー "著者は、DNAマイクロアレイデータを対象に、2000年から2009年にかけて出版された11,603本の論文を機械的に抽出してビブリオメトリクスの手法で調査を行いました. その結果、これらの論文に登場するデータセットのうち25％が公開されていることが分かったそうです. また、2001年のデータの公開率は5％以下だったものの、2007-2009年のものは30-35％と増加していたとのことです. 重回帰分析によってデータの公開に前向きな層も浮かび上がり、それらは、過去にデータの公開・再利用をしたことがある、掲載論文がオープンアクセスであるか比較的強いデータ共有ポリシーを持つジャーナルに掲載されている、米国国立衛生研究所（NIH）の助成を受けている、という場合だったそうです. 一方、癌や人体実験といった研究分野では消極的だったようです"
 * 1. McCain K (1995) Mandating Sharing: Journal Policies in the Natural Sciences. Science Communication 16: 403–431. Find this article online


 * 2. Piwowar H, Chapman W (2008) A review of journal policies for sharing research data. ELPUB, Toronto Canada.

Many funders require data sharing plans as a condition of funding: Since 2003, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the USA has required a data sharing plan for all large funding grants [3]  NIH has more recently than 2003 introduced stronger requirements for genome-wide association studies [4].  '''As of January 2011, the US National Science Foundation requires that data sharing plans accompany all research grant proposals [5]. ''' 3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2003) NOT-OD-03-032: Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data. 4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2007) NOT-OD-08-013: Implementation Guidance and Instructions for Applicants: Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH-Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). 5. Nation Science Foundation (NSF) (2011) Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter II.C.2.j.

'''Several government whitepapers [6], [7] and high-profile editorials [8], [9] call for responsible data sharing and reuse. ''' 6. Fienberg SE, Martin ME, Straf ML (1985) Sharing research data. National Academy Press. 7. Cech TR, Eddy SR, Eisenberg D, Hersey K, Holtzman SH, et al. (2003) Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. Plant Physiol 132: 19–24. Find this article online 8. (2007) Time for leadership. Nat Biotech 25: 821–821. Find this article online 9. (2007) Got data? Nat Neurosci 10: 931–931. Find this article online

Large-scale collaborative science is increasing the need to share datasets [10]   10. Kakazu KK, Cheung LW, Lynne W (2004) The Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG): pioneering an expansive network of information and tools for collaborative cancer research. Hawaii Med J 63: 273–275.

many guidelines, tools, standards, and databases are being developed and maintained to facilitate data sharing and reuse [12], [13]. 12. Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, Sherlock G, Spellman P, et al. (2001) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29: 365–371. 13. Barrett T, Troup D, Wilhite S, Ledoux P, Rudnev D, et al. (2007) NCBI GEO: mining tens of millions of expression profiles–database and tools update. Nucleic Acids Res 35:

Dimensions of data sharing action and intention have been investigated by a variety of studies. Manual annotations and systematic data requests have been used to estimate the frequency of data sharing within biomedicine [14], [15], [16], [17],

14.Noor MA, Zimmerman KJ, Teeter KC (2006) Data Sharing: How Much Doesn't Get Submitted to GenBank? PLoS Biol 4: e228.

 * Pick four journals with strict data sharing policy/mandate
 * Extract all articles with non-artificial sequence in latest 6 month window. 280 articles.
 * Result:26/280 do not have acc# in articles.
 * Hand Search GenBank by titles, organism, author etc if they submit and open the data.
 * Result:(No acc# and no data):19 articles, (no acc# but data in genBank):7 articles.
 * Result: Incidence varies among journal titles (not significant)

15 Ochsner SA, Steffen DL, Stoeckert CJ, McKenna NJ (2008) Much room for improvement in deposition rates of expression microarray datasets. Nature Methods 5: 991.
We surveyed papers from the 2007 issues of 20 journals retrieved with a Medline search for the terms "microarray/s OR genome-wide OR expression profile/s OR transcription profile/profiling." After removing false positives, we searched the full text of the papers for reference to deposition of a microarray dataset. The rate of deposition of datasets was less than 50% "A previous article by Ochsner et al. [16] identified 397 published studies that generated gene expression microarray data. Their examination of data sharing statements revealed that 186 (47%) of these studies had made their datasets publicly available. Fourteen studies had more than one associated dataset (13 studies had two associated datasets, one study had five). The combined 203 datasets were found in a variety of locations: 147 (72%) in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, 32 (16%) in the ArrayExpress database, 12 (6%) hosted on journal websites, and 12 (6%) on laboratory websites and smaller online data repositories. Combined, GEO and ArrayExpress housed 179 (88%) of the datasets found by the Ochsner search."

16. Reidpath DD, Allotey PA (2001) Data sharing in medical research: an empirical investigation. Bioethics 15: 125–134.
"In a prospective study, 29 corresponding authors of original research articles in a medical journal (the 'British Medical Journal') were contacted to ascertain their preparedness to share the data from their research. The email contact was in one of two forms, a general request and a specific request. The type of request a researcher received was randomly allocated. Findings: Researchers receiving specific requests for data were less likely, and slower, to respond than researchers receiving general requests. Only one researcher released data. Most researchers were reluctant to release their data. Some required further information, clarification, or authorship."

17.Kyzas P, Loizou K, Ioannidis J (2005) Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1043–1055.
"For the 18 studies with 1364 HNSCC patients that included published and indexed data, we obtained a highly statistically significant association between TP53 status and mortality. When we used the definitions preferred by each publication, the association was stronger than when we standardized definitions. The addition of 13 studies with 1028 subjects that included published but not indexed data reduced the observed association. Finally, when we obtained data from investigators (11 studies with 996 patients) and analyzed it with all other data, statistical significance was lost."

few attempts were made to determine patterns of sharing and withholding within these samples

Blumenthal [18], Campbell [19], Hedstrom [20], and others have used survey results to correlate self-reported instances of data sharing and withholding with self-reported attributes like industry involvement, perceived competitiveness, career productivity, and anticipated data sharing costs.

18. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M, Yucel R, Clarridge B, et al. (2006) Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad Med 81: 137–145.
"In 2000, a sample of 2,893 geneticists and other life scientists (OLS) at the 100 most research-intensive universities in the United States were surveyed concerning data withholding and sharing." "A total of 1,849 faculty responded (64%): 1,240 geneticists and 600 OLS. Forty-four percent of geneticists and 32% of OLS reported participating in any one of 13 forms of data withholding in the three previous years. Publishing withholding (geneticists 35%, OLS 25%) was more frequent than verbal withholding (geneticists 23%, OLS 12%)."

19. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, et al. (2002) Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287: 473–480.

 * １８番の対象に対する続報　著者はmas-gene-hospital の健康政策院の教授　　遺伝学と非遺伝学に分けて分析　遺伝学は隠す人が多い

20. Hedstrom M (2006) Producing Archive-Ready Datasets: Compliance, Incentives, and Motivation. IASSIST Conference 2006: Presentations.
Others have used surveys and interviews to analyze opinions about the effectiveness of mandates [21]

--21. Ventura B (2005) Mandatory submission of microarray data to public repositories: how is it working? Physiol Genomics 20: 153–156.

 * この雑誌でマイクロアレイを登録義務付けて２年経過した2004年に 300人あまりにアンケート調査　we surveyed 76 scientists who have had microarray studies published in this journal and 237 more who reviewed microarray papers for the journal. Overall, 29% of them responded to our survey

and the value of various incentives [20], [22], [23], [24].

--22. Giordano R (2007) The Scientist: Secretive, Selfish, or Reticent?. A Social Network Analysis. E-Social Science.

 * 英国の社会学者による社会科学の手法による（聞き取り）科学社会の特徴解析　関連の文献豊富　７０年台に科学社会の階級化（stratification)が指摘されてたようです

--23. Hedstrom M, Niu J (2008) Research Forum Presentation: Incentives to Create “Archive-Ready” Data: Implications for Archives and Records Management. Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting.

 * パワポによるとミシガン大の情報系の先生のメタデータ付きのきれいなデータを登録させるための計画　悪人モデル

--25. Lowrance W (2006) Access to Collections of Data and Materials for Heath Research: A report to the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

 * 39pageのリポート　米国と英国の例中心

some work has been done to correlate policy strength with outcome [2], [28]

 * 両方雑誌のポリシーの効果

--28. McCullough BD, McGeary KA, Harrison TD (2008) Do Economics Journal Archives Promote Replicable Research? Canadian Journal of Economics 41: 1406–1420.
"The first thing to note from Table 2 is that JAE has near-perfect compliance,211/213=99%. Meanwhile, JBES = 112/312 = 36% and EJ = 35/279=13%. What is the reason for the JAE’s high compliance rate? In contrast to the other journals, only the JAE already follows two of the recommendations that we made in MMH: (1) the archive manager should be an editorial position; and (2) it should be the Economics Journal Archives policy of the journal not to publish an article until the author has deposited his contribution to the archive.8" AUTHORNAME. TITLE. SOURCE. . URL:http://faculty.lebow.drexel.edu/harrisont/forthcoming/stlf-final_cje_2008.pdf. Accessed: 2011-08-03. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/60fM2UrLS)
 * 経済学分野のデータ共有に関する調査　雑誌のガバナンスでは　データを登録しないと投稿受け付けないという強いポリシーのみ有効と示した

Surveys and case studies have been used to develop models of information behavior in related domains, including knowledge sharing within an organization [29], [30]  physician knowledge sharing in hospitals [31], 

=
--29. Constant D, Kiesler S, Sproull L (1994) What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research 5: 400–421. ===== "we derived vignette-based measures of attitudes. Subjects read a description of an employee's encounter with a previously unhelpful coworker who subsequently requested help—in the form of a computer program or computer advice. The influence of prosocial attitudes and organizational norms is inferred from subjects' support of sharing despite the previous unhelpful behavior of the coworker."
 * Vignette-based （あなたならどうする？式）の質問でプログラム共有の行為の背景とパタンを

--30. Matzler K, Renzl B, Muller J, Herting S, Mooradian T (2008) Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology 29: 301–313.
we describe an empirical study that relates three personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness) to knowledge sharing. In the existing literature considerable attention has been paid to managerial influences on knowledge sharing, technological support through information and communication systems, or individual characteristics like motivation or the perception of conflict of interest or vulnerability. Instead we concentrate on the role that personal dispositions play in individual's knowledge sharing behaviors

participation in large-scale biomedical research collaborations [36].
1. McCain K (1995) Mandating Sharing: Journal Policies in the Natural Sciences. Science Communication 16: 403–431. Find this article online 2. Piwowar H, Chapman W (2008) A review of journal policies for sharing research data. ELPUB, Toronto Canada. 3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2003) NOT-OD-03-032: Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data. 4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2007) NOT-OD-08-013: Implementation Guidance and Instructions for Applicants: Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH-Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). 5. Nation Science Foundation (NSF) (2011) Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter II.C.2.j.  6. Fienberg SE, Martin ME, Straf ML (1985) Sharing research data. National Academy Press. 7. Cech TR, Eddy SR, Eisenberg D, Hersey K, Holtzman SH, et al. (2003) Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. Plant Physiol 132: 19–24. Find this article online 8. (2007) Time for leadership. Nat Biotech 25: 821–821. Find this article online 9. (2007) Got data? Nat Neurosci 10: 931–931. Find this article online 10. Kakazu KK, Cheung LW, Lynne W (2004) The Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG): pioneering an expansive network of information and tools for collaborative cancer research. Hawaii Med J 63: 273–275. Find this article online 11. The GAIN Collaborative Research Group (2007) New models of collaboration in genome-wide association studies: the Genetic Association Information Network. Nat Genet 39: 1045–1051. Find this article online 12. Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, Sherlock G, Spellman P, et al. (2001) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29: 365–371. Find this article online 13. Barrett T, Troup D, Wilhite S, Ledoux P, Rudnev D, et al. (2007) NCBI GEO: mining tens of millions of expression profiles–database and tools update. Nucleic Acids Res 35: Find this article online 14. Noor MA, Zimmerman KJ, Teeter KC (2006) Data Sharing: How Much Doesn't Get Submitted to GenBank? PLoS Biol 4: e228. Find this article online 15. Ochsner SA, Steffen DL, Stoeckert CJ, McKenna NJ (2008) Much room for improvement in deposition rates of expression microarray datasets. Nature Methods 5: 991. Find this article online 16. Reidpath DD, Allotey PA (2001) Data sharing in medical research: an empirical investigation. Bioethics 15: 125–134. Find this article online 17. Kyzas P, Loizou K, Ioannidis J (2005) Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1043–1055. Find this article online 18. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M, Yucel R, Clarridge B, et al. (2006) Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad Med 81: 137–145. Find this article online 19. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, et al. (2002) Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287: 473–480. Find this article online 20. Hedstrom M (2006) Producing Archive-Ready Datasets: Compliance, Incentives, and Motivation. IASSIST Conference 2006: Presentations. 21. Ventura B (2005) Mandatory submission of microarray data to public repositories: how is it working? Physiol Genomics 20: 153–156. Find this article online 22. Giordano R (2007) The Scientist: Secretive, Selfish, or Reticent?. A Social Network Analysis. E-Social Science. 23. Hedstrom M, Niu J (2008) Research Forum Presentation: Incentives to Create “Archive-Ready” Data: Implications for Archives and Records Management. Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting. 24. Niu J (2006) Incentive study for research data sharing. A case study on NIJ grantees. 25. Lowrance W (2006) Access to Collections of Data and Materials for Heath Research: A report to the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. 26. University of Nottingham JULIET: Research funders' open access policies. 27. Brown C (2003) The changing face of scientific discourse: Analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54: 926–938. Find this article online 28. McCullough BD, McGeary KA, Harrison TD (2008) Do Economics Journal Archives Promote Replicable Research? Canadian Journal of Economics 41: 1406–1420. Find this article online 29. Constant D, Kiesler S, Sproull L (1994) What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research 5: 400–421. Find this article online 30. Matzler K, Renzl B, Muller J, Herting S, Mooradian T (2008) Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology 29: 301–313. Find this article online 31. Ryu S, Ho SH, Han I (2003) Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems With Applications 25: 113–122. Find this article online 32. Bitzer J, Schrettl W, Schröder PJH (2007) Intrinsic motivation in open source software development. Journal of Comparative Economics 35: 160–169. Find this article online 33. Kim J (2007) Motivating and Impeding Factors Affecting Faculty Contribution to Institutional Repositories. Journal of Digital Information 8: 2. Find this article online 34. Seonghee K, Boryung J (2008) An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration in an academic institution. Library 30: 282–290. Find this article online 35. Warlick S, Vaughan K (2007) Factors influencing publication choice: why faculty choose open access. Biomed Digit Libr 4: 1. Find this article online 36. Lee C, Dourish P, Mark G (2006) The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Banff, Canada. 37. Kuo F, Young M (2008) A study of the intention–action gap in knowledge sharing practices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 1224–1237. Find this article online 38. Rhodes DR, Yu J, Shanker K, Deshpande N, Varambally R, et al. (2004) Large-scale meta-analysis of cancer microarray data identifies common transcriptional profiles of neoplastic transformation and progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 9309–9314. Find this article online 39. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Altman D (2009) Towards agreement on best practice for publishing raw clinical trial data. Trials 10: 17. Find this article online 40. Parkinson H, Kapushesky M, Shojatalab M, Abeygunawardena N, Coulson R, et al. (2007) ArrayExpress–a public database of microarray experiments and gene expression profiles. Nucleic Acids Res 35(Database issue): D747–D750. Find this article online 41. Ball CA, Brazma A, Causton H, Chervitz S, Edgar R, et al. (2004) Submission of microarray data to public repositories. PLoS Biol 2: e317. Find this article online 42. (2002) Microarray standards at last. Nature 419: 323. Find this article online 43. Piwowar HA (2010) Foundational studies for measuring the impact, prevalence, and patterns of publicly sharing biomedical research data. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pittsburgh. 44. Piwowar H, Chapman W (2010) Recall and bias of retrieving gene expression microarray datasets through PubMed identifiers. J Biomed Discov Collab 5: 7–20. Find this article online 45. Yu W, Yesupriya A, Wulf A, Qu J, Gwinn M, et al. (2007) An automatic method to generate domain-specific investigator networks using PubMed abstracts. BMC medical informatics and decision making 7: 17. Find this article online 46. Torvik V, Smalheiser NR (2009) Author Name Disambiguation in MEDLINE. Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 1–37. Find this article online 47. Bird S, Loper E (2006) Natural Language Toolkit. Available: http://nltk.sourceforge.net/. 48. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: ISBN 3-900051-07-0. 49. Theus M, Urbanek S (2008) Interactive Graphics for Data Analysis: Principles and Examples (Computer Science and Data Analysis). Chapman & Hall/CRC. 50. Harrell FE (2001) Regression Modeling Strategies. Springer. 51. Gorsuch RL (1983) Factor Analysis, Second Edition. Psychology Press. 52. Vickers AJ (2008 January 22) Cancer Data? Sorry, Can't Have It. The New York Times. 53. Siemsen E, Roth A, Balasubramanian S (2008) How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management 26: 426–445. Find this article online 54. Tucker J (2009) Motivating Subjects: Data Sharing in Cancer Research [PhD dissertation.]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 55. Malin B, Karp D, Scheuermann RH (2010) Technical and policy approaches to balancing patient privacy and data sharing in clinical and translational research. J Investig Med 58: 11–18. Find this article online 56. Foster M, Sharp R (2007) Share and share alike: deciding how to distribute the scientific and social benefits of genomic data. Nat Rev Genet 8: 633–639. Find this article online 57. Navarro R (2008) An ethical framework for sharing patient data without consent. Inform Prim Care 16: 257–262. Find this article online 58. Blumenthal D, Campbell E, Anderson M, Causino N, Louis K (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 277: 1224–1228. Find this article online 59. Vogeli C, Yucel R, Bendavid E, Jones L, Anderson M, et al. (2006) Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey. Acad Med 81: 128–136. Find this article online 60. Piwowar HA, Chapman WW (2010) Public Sharing of Research Datasets: A Pilot Study of Associations. Journal of Informetrics 4: 148–156. Find this article online 61. Wellcome Trust (2010) Sharing research data to improve public health: full joint statement by funders of health research. 62. Hosek SD, Cox AG, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Kofner A, Ramphal N, et al. (2005) Gender Differences in Major Federal External Grant Programs. RAND Corporation. 63. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D (2009) Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 1286–1289. Find this article online 64. Piwowar HA (2011) Data From: Who Shares?. Who Doesn't? Factors Associated with Openly Archiving Raw Research Data. Dryad Digital Repository. Available doi:10.5061/dryad.mf1sd. =RANDOM ITEMS=
 * Overview of Funders' Data Policies The coverage of funders' publication and data policies and the support they provide is summarised in the table below and the clarifications that follow.
 * Policy tools and guidance
 * Get free online courses from the world’s leading universities. This collection includes over 250 free courses in the liberal arts and sciences. Download these audio & video courses straight to your computer or mp3 player.
 * 70 Signs of Intelligent Life at YouTube
 * １．国立保健研究所PubMedにおけるオープンアクセス 国立保健研究所（National Institutes of Health- NIH）は2004年に、その支援を行った研究の成果である学術論文について、そのピアレビュー済みの最終原稿を当該論文が学術誌において出版された後、6か月以内にNIHの国立医学図書館（National Library of Medicine- NLM）のPibMed Central（PMC）において公開するという内容のパブリックアクセスポリシーに基づき、原稿の提出を受け付け、一般の人々に対して無料公開を開始した. このパブリックアクセスは、翌年に学術誌出版から公開までの期間を12か月に延長され、また、論文の提出についても2008年統合歳出予算法（Consolidated Appropriation Act）において自発的なものから義務的なものに改められるなどの経緯を経て現在に至っている. ２．立法府におけるオープンアクセスに関する動き （１）アメリカCOMPETES法 2007年8月9日に成立した「米国の技術・教育・科学における卓越性に関する意味ある促進機会の創造法（America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act. 通称「アメリカCOMPETES法（The America COMPETES Act）」」は、米国の研究開発活動に関する幅広い事項について定めた法律であるが、オープンアクセス化についても、科学技術政策室（OSTP）を中心として政府全体にわたる科学活動に関する条項及び国立科学財団に関する条項においてその言及が見られる.
 * 米国の科学技術情報政策の歴史　The goal of having a comprehensive collection of science information easily available to researchers and students has been expressed repeatedly for decades.


 * Policy-related publications Beagrie, Neil et al, Digital preservation policies study, (2008) This study responds to the lack of institutional level curation policies across the HE sector by providing a framework for those planning to create such policies, together with a series of mappings to core university business drivers so preservation policies can be embedded in wider aims. Gibbs, Harry et al, DataShare: State-of-the-Art Review (2007) A data sharing review that considers funder requirements, barrier and benefits to sharing, and current practices. Jones, Sarah, A report on the range of policies required for and related to digital curation, (2009) A detailed report on the curation policy and data management plan requirements of main UK research funders on which this web page is based. The report also maps requirements against existing institutional provision to identify gaps. Lyon, Liz, Dealing with Data: Roles, Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships (2007) This strategic report investigates how data is currently being curated across the UK. Policies related to data curation are referenced throughout and a section of the synthesis and discussion focuses specifically on policy and planning. RIN, Research funders' policies for the management of information outputs (2007) This study investigates the policy and practice of UK research funders in managing their research outputs. It compares policies across the Research Councils and other funding bodies by the type of output, such as journal articles, books and data. RIN, Stewardship of digital research data: a framework of principles and guidelines (2008) The RIN framework synthesises the RCUK statement on access to research and OECD principles to avoid inconsistencies and duplication. Five core principles for effective stewardship are asserted. Ruusalepp, Raivo, A comparative study of international approaches to the sharing of research data (2008) A DCC and JISC report that compares policies, strategies, infrastructure and services for sharing research data across OECD member countries.