A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing.

No abstract

Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated as great attention has focused on improving survivorship care. Recent expert consensus has attempted to prioritize research needs and suggests greater focus on studying physical functioning of survivors. However, no analysis of the publication landscape has substantiated these proposed needs. This manuscript provides an analysis of PubMed indexed articles related to cancer rehabilitation published between 1992 and 2017. A total of 22 171 publications were analyzed using machine learning and text analysis to assess publication metrics, topic areas of emphasis, and their interrelationships through topic similarity networks. Publications have increased at a rate of 136 articles per year. Approximately 10% of publications were funded by the National Institutes of Health institutes and centers, with the National Cancer Institute being the most prominent funder. The greatest volume and rate of publication increase were in the topics of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies and Psychological Interventions, followed by Depression and Exercise Therapy. Four research topic similarity networks were identified and provide insight on areas of robust publication and notable deficits. Findings suggest that publication emphasis has strongly supported cognitive, behavioral, and psychological therapies; however, studies of functional morbidity and physical rehabilitation research are lacking. Three areas of publication deficits are noted: research on populations outside of breast, prostate, and lung cancers; methods for integrating physical rehabilitation services with cancer care, specifically regarding functional screening and assessment; and physical rehabilitation interventions. These deficits align with the needs identified by expert consensus and support the supposition that future research should emphasize a focus on physical rehabilitation.

Evaluation of scientific research is becoming increasingly reliant on publication-based bibliometric indicators, which may result in the devaluation of other scientific activities - such as data curation – that do not necessarily result in the production of scientific publications. This issue may undermine the movement to openly share and cite data sets in scientific publications because researchers are unlikely to devote the effort necessary to curate their research data if they are unlikely to receive credit for doing so. This analysis attempts to demonstrate the bibliometric impact of properly curated and openly accessible data sets by attempting to generate citation counts for three data sets archived at the National Oceanographic Data Center. My findings suggest that all three data sets are highly cited, with estimated citation counts in most cases higher than 99% of all the journal articles published in Oceanography during the same years. I also find that methods of citing and referring to these data sets in scientific publications are highly inconsistent, despite the fact that a formal citation format is suggested for each data set. These findings have important implications for developing a data citation format, encouraging researchers to properly curate their research data, and evaluating the bibliometric impact of individuals and institutions.