Gauging the Purported Costs of Public Data Archiving for Long-Term Population Studies

Simon Robin Evans

PLOS Biology, 2016, vol. 14, issue 4, 1-9

Abstract: It was recently proposed that long-term population studies be exempted from the expectation that authors publicly archive the primary data underlying published articles. Such studies are valuable to many areas of ecological and evolutionary biological research, and multiple risks to their viability were anticipated as a result of public data archiving (PDA), ultimately all stemming from independent reuse of archived data. However, empirical assessment was missing, making it difficult to determine whether such fears are realistic. I addressed this by surveying data packages from long-term population studies archived in the Dryad Digital Repository. I found no evidence that PDA results in reuse of data by independent parties, suggesting the purported costs of PDA for long-term population studies have been overstated.Ecologists were recently advised that primary data archiving threatens the sustainability of long-term population studies because of negative impacts of data reuse by others. However, this Perspective describes an empirical assessment that finds little evidence of data reuse, suggesting that such fears may be unfounded.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002432 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file ... 02432&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002432

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002432

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosbiology ().