Primary data collected during a research study is often shared and may be reused for new studies. To assess the extent of data sharing in favourable circumstances and whether data sharing checks can be automated, this article investigates summary statistics from primary human genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This type of data is highly suitable for sharing because it is a standard research output, is straightforward to use in future studies (e.g., for secondary analysis), and may be already stored in a standard format for internal sharing within multi-site research projects. Manual checks of 1799 articles from 2010 and 2017 matching a simple PubMed query for molecular epidemiology GWAS were used to identify 314 primary human GWAS papers. Of these, only 13% reported the location of a complete set of GWAS summary data, increasing from 3% in 2010 to 23% in 2017. Whilst information about whether data was shared was typically located clearly within a data availability statement, the exact nature of the shared data was usually unspecified. Thus, data sharing is the exception even in suitable research fields with relatively strong data sharing norms. Moreover, the lack of clear data descriptions within data sharing statements greatly complicates the task of automatically characterising shared data sets.

Despite growing evidence of open biodiversity data reuse by scientists, information about how data is reused and cited is rarely openly accessible from research data repositories. This study explores data citation and reuse practices in biodiversity by using openly available metadata for 43,802 datasets indexed in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and content analyses of articles citing GBIF data. Results from quantitative and content analyses suggest that even though the number of studies making use of openly available biodiversity data has been increasing steadily, best practice for data citation is not yet common. It is encouraging, however, that an increasing number of recent articles (16 out of 23 in 2019) in biodiversity cite datasets in a standard way. A content analysis of a random sample of unique citing articles (n=100) found various types of background (n=18) and foreground (n=81) reuse cases for GBIF data, ranging from combining with other data sources to create species distribution modelling to software testing. This demonstrates some unique research opportunities created by open data. Among the citing articles, 27% mentioned the dataset in references and 13% in data access statements in addition to the methods section. Citation practice was inconsistent especially when a large number of subsets (12~50) were used. Even though many GBIF dataset records had altmetric scores, most posts only mentioned the articles linked to those datasets. Among the altmetric mentions of datasets, blogs can be the most informative, even though rare, and most tweets and Facebook posts were for promotional purposes.

Introduction: Improving peri-and postnatal facility-based care in low-resource settings (LRS) could save over 6000 babies' lives per day. Most of the annual 2.4 million neonatal deaths and 2 million stillbirths occur in healthcare facilities in LRS and are preventable through the implementation of cost-effective, simple, evidence-based interventions. However, their implementation is challenging in healthcare systems where one in four babies admitted to neonatal units die. In high-resource settings healthcare systems strengthening is increasingly delivered via learning healthcare systems to optimise care quality, but this approach is rare in LRS.Methods: Since 2014 we have worked in Bangladesh, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and the UK to co-develop and pilot the Neotree system: an android application with accompanying data visualisation, linkage, and export. Its low-cost hardware and state-ofthe-art software are used to support healthcare professionals to improve postnatal care at the bedside and to provide insights into population health trends. Here we summarise the formative conceptualisation, development, and preliminary implementation experience of the Neotree.Results: Data thus far from ~18 000 babies, 400 healthcare professionals in four hospitals (two in Zimbabwe, two in Malawi) show high acceptability, feasibility, usability, and improvements in healthcare professionals' ability to deliver newborn care. The data also highlight gaps in knowledge in newborn care and quality improvement.Implementation has been resilient and informative during external crises, for example, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We have demonstrated evidence of improvements in clinical care and use of data for Quality Improvement (QI) projects.Msandeni Esther Chiume and Simbarashe Chimhuya are joint last authors.

PurposeThis study investigates differences and commonalities in data production, sharing and reuse across the widest range of disciplines yet and identifies types of improvements needed to promote data sharing and reuse.Design/methodology/approachThe first authors of randomly selected publications from 2018 to 2019 in 20 Scopus disciplines were surveyed for their beliefs and experiences about data sharing and reuse.FindingsFrom the 3,257 survey responses, data sharing and reuse are still increasing but not ubiquitous in any subject area and are more common among experienced researchers. Researchers with previous data reuse experience were more likely to share data than others. Types of data produced and systematic online data sharing varied substantially between subject areas. Although the use of institutional and journal-supported repositories for sharing data is increasing, personal websites are still frequently used. Combining multiple existing datasets to answer new research questions was the most common use. Proper documentation, openness and information on the usability of data continue to be important when searching for existing datasets. However, researchers in most disciplines struggled to find datasets to reuse. Researchers' feedback suggested 23 recommendations to promote data sharing and reuse, including improved data access and usability, formal data citations, new search features and cultural and policy-related disciplinary changes to increase awareness and acceptance.Originality/valueThis study is the first to explore data sharing and reuse practices across the full range of academic discipline types. It expands and updates previous data sharing surveys and suggests new areas of improvement in terms of policy, guidance and training programs.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2021-0423.