From the people that know how to save and care for things of importance, comes this essay from The Smithsonian:

One of the foundations of the scientific method is the reproducibility of results. In a lab anywhere around the world, a researcher should be able to study the same subject as another scientist and reproduce the same data, or analyze the same data and notice the same patterns.

This is why the findings of a study published today in Current Biology are so concerning. When a group of researchers tried to email the authors of 516 biological studies published between 1991 and 2011 and ask for the raw data, they were dismayed to find that more 90 percent of the oldest data (from papers written more than 20 years ago) were inaccessible. In total, even including papers published as recently as 2011, they were only able to track down the data for 23 percent.

“Everybody kind of knows that if you ask a researcher for data from old studies, they’ll hem and haw, because they don’t know where it is,” says Timothy Vines, a zoologist at the University of British Columbia, who led the effort. “But there really hadn’t ever been systematic estimates of how quickly the data held by authors actually disappears.”

To make their estimate, his group chose a type of data that’s been relatively consistent over time—anatomical measurements of plants and animals—and dug up between 25 and 40 papers for each odd year during the period that used this sort of data, to see if they could hunt down the raw numbers.

A surprising amount of their inquiries were halted at the very first step: for 25 percent of the studies, active email addresses couldn’t be found, with defunct addresses listed on the paper itself and web searches not turning up any current ones. For another 38 percent of studies, their queries led to no response. Another 7 percent of the data sets were lost or inaccessible.

“Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,” Vines says. Because the basic idea of keeping data is so that it can be used by others in future research, this sort of obsolescence essentially renders the data useless.

These might seem like mundane obstacles, but scientists are just like the rest of us—they change email addresses, they get new computers with different drives, they lose their file backups—so these trends reflect serious, systemic problems in science.

===============================================================

The paper:

The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age

Highlights

• We examined the availability of data from 516 studies between 2 and 22 years old

• The odds of a data set being reported as extant fell by 17% per year

• Broken e-mails and obsolete storage devices were the main obstacles to data sharing

• Policies mandating data archiving at publication are clearly needed

Summary

Policies ensuring that research data are available on public archives are increasingly being implemented at the government [1], funding agency [2, 3 and 4], and journal [5 and 6] level. These policies are predicated on the idea that authors are poor stewards of their data, particularly over the long term [7], and indeed many studies have found that authors are often unable or unwilling to share their data [8, 9, 10 and 11]. However, there are no systematic estimates of how the availability of research data changes with time since publication. We therefore requested data sets from a relatively homogenous set of 516 articles published between 2 and 22 years ago, and found that availability of the data was strongly affected by article age. For papers where the authors gave the status of their data, the odds of a data set being extant fell by 17% per year. In addition, the odds that we could find a working e-mail address for the first, last, or corresponding author fell by 7% per year. Our results reinforce the notion that, in the long term, research data cannot be reliably preserved by individual researchers, and further demonstrate the urgent need for policies mandating data sharing via public archives.

Results

We investigated how research data availability changes with article age. To avoid potential confounding effects of data type and different research community practices, we focused on recovering data from articles containing morphological data from plants or animals that made use of a discriminant function analysis (DFA). Our final data set consisted of 516 articles published between 1991 and 2011. We found at least one apparently working e-mail for 385 papers (74%), either in the article itself or by searching online. We received 101 data sets (19%) and were told that another 20 (4%) were still in use and could not be shared, such that a total of 121 data sets (23%) were confirmed as extant. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the data by year.

We used logistic regression to formally investigate the relationships between the age of the paper and (1) the probability that at least one e-mail appeared to work (i.e., did not generate an error message), (2) the conditional probability of a response given that at least one e-mail appeared to work, (3) the conditional probability of getting a response that indicated the status of the data (data lost, data exist but unwilling to share, or data shared) given that a response was received, and, finally, (4) the conditional probability that the data were extant (either “shared” or “exists but unwilling to share”) given that an informative response was received.

There was a negative relationship between the age of the paper and the probability of finding at least one apparently working e-mail either in the paper or by searching online (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93 [0.90–0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI)], p < 0.00001). The odds ratio suggests that for every year since publication, the odds of finding at least one apparently working e-mail decreased by 7%

See more discussion and graphs here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213014000

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...