Which of the following best describes your current position as a researcher? -TEXT
I am an archivist, facilitationg research by preserving collections and making them accessible

Would you describe yourself as primarily: -TEXT
health based researcher, employing a range of research methods, not categorisable into any one of the above
Clinician and basic biomedical scientist
A basic computational biological researcher
Please see above. In my relationship with Wellcome I am not a researcher at all but a facilitator ; my organisation has a Wellcome funded post to catalogue a collection of potential research material
Currently basic biomedical science, progressing to clinical medicine post-PhD

Which methodologies do you apply in your research? (select all that apply)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
Structural equation modeling/multivariate analysis of large cohorts
cross sectional and longitudinal studies
Hypothesis driven mechanism focussed research
Creating archival resources for others to use
stemmatic analysis of medieval manuscript transmission
Law - analysis of judgments, legislation & policy documents

Besides the Wellcome Trust, who else has funded your research in the last 5 years? (select all th...-Other (please specify)-TEXT
oversea government scholarship for my PhD
Personal funds (for small studdent projects)
International organisations such as WHO, UNAIDS, GFATM
I am not a researcher. Other work of a similar nature to that which Wellcome has funded has been undertaken using grants from Archives and Records Council wales, the finances originating from Welsh Government. This funding has been on a very much smaller cale however.

Please rate the importance of the following factors in choosing a journal for publication of your...-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
Relevance to the specific region where research is being conducted and expected to provide immediate impact
Suitability of publication for my area of research
remit of journal and expertise of editorial board
Many of the above things haven't been such an important factor for me so far because of my Grant
Journal ALLOWS supporting data (not the same as above)
sensible science based assessments of importance (eg, not professional editors)
journal supports good research practices (https://twitter.com/brembs/status/761187480905318402)
Editors and reviewers that are constructive with reviews to maximise chance of publishing
readership whether medical or humanities
Publication charges are very important, unfortunately. I do not have resources for those and thus cannot submit to good journals that have page charges.
No comment - but machine demands an answer so I'm giving one
Editors are accessible for consultation.
High expectation for my work to be cited
Journal is known by the audience I try to reach

Please rate the importance of the following factors when selecting papers to read and cite in you...-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
if institutional subscription is not available Open Access is available
Again, many of these things would be much more important if I was in a different institution
relevance to my interests; LMIC authorship; trusthworthiness of argument
Paper available EITHER via open access OR via institutional subscription
up to date information or recently published

Focusing on your papers that are NOT Open Access, what are your reasons for nothing making them O...-Other (please specify)-TEXT
I always make papers on which I am the senior author open access. In other papers the senior author took the decision and I did not check what decision was made so I am only guessing the number of papers that were not open access
by preference published in traditional paper printed format
Impact factor / reputation of journal that the article was published in
Open Access fees are very high, I chose this only for important articles if I have to pay them myself
I had no saying in the process of journal selection
The paper I haven't made open access was published when I was a student in Bucharest and we didn't have enough funding to make the paper open access.
My older papers are not open access. This was based on my supervisor's decision as a student. All my newer publications are open access.
Collaborating papers, corresponging authors' decision
Not a reason not to do it but: If you are not the corresponding author it can be quite a pain to get open access sorted afterwards should the corresponding author not have done this already
(but I would reconsider if there were not the funds available to pay the open access charge)
not convinced that it benefits my professional profile
papers were published pre-2014, when open access was not yet mandatory by my funders
No particular reason. I just selected the journals based on their reputation and didnt see need to make my work OA
Contains early years when my university didn't followed the open access policy- all my new papers are now open-access
N/A: I have not yet sole authored a paper
i was not senior author, i.e. not my primary responsibility
last 3 all open access. we now always make open access in line with WT policy and good practise
wasn't an option - I always do if an option
the one paper that is not open access predated the move towards open access publishing.
Department not able to support open access
The decision was made by the corresponding author
not a requirement of funder and was a collaboration with others leading publication strategy
Books and book chapters are harder to make OA
reviews which do not require open access from funders
Middle author and first/senior author did not pursue offer of OA
we weren't the lead institution on the publication
corresponding author hasn't got round to i
They were reviews and wellcome say reviews don't need to be OA. It is a hassle makingg stuff OA so I avoid it if possible.
I am not the correspondig author and this was mainly collaborative work with other group/groups
commentaries or reviews in Nature group that cant be open acces, so have to put in university repository
Published before Open Access became a requirement
submitting author did not honour my request (and offer of funding) to make OA
Open access has recently become important, so will do this for all from now on
Not aware of the open access priority by funders
unclear on copyright rules for reposiories until recently!
it wasn't requried by the wellcome at the time so we didn;t do it
One is a book chapter; the othr was led by someone else and published in 2011 before OA was made a priority
Review articles and other non-original research not made OA
I make papers available to individuals upon request via email
The senior author was set on the journal to publish in.
OA has not traditionally being a key target or factor to consider
I do not pay for open access if I am not obliged to by funder
collaborators and lead authors took decision

Which extra features do you think should be provided in future research publication systems? (sel...-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
Publication of results of studies beyond just the raw data - summary tables of all outcomes measured, not just those presented for the story in the paper
none of this applioes to the greater longevity and readability of humanities articles
The most important feature will be that other journals will allow publication of the results after they have been presented on the open platform.
reduction of publication costs/fees for the author determined by the number of article downloads after a certain time
Crowd Solving: Dynamic linking of findings
publication of datasets which can be cited
i dont understand all of the other itemsof h
either double blind review process or mandatory naming of reviewers
preregistration, code available if applicable
The only thing I can see that would be useful is to make it compulsory for everyone. Otherwise it seems too risky to me.
Sorry, just don't know enough about this world.
i'm not sure what these are...it hasnt been explained anywhere what the new publishing platform would look like/how it would work/what it is?
Fluid and open independent review of open access platforms themselves
sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean by a preprint!
I don't think any of these are particularly desirable and some are highly problematic

Choose the (multiple) characteristics that describe the kind of research data you generate (selec...-Other (please specify)-TEXT
mainly basic mechanisms of virus infection.
Reseacrh based on historic primary sources
I analyse primary data - develop models that can generate secondary data for decision making
philosophically rigorous philosophical arguments grounded in humanities scholarship and research
quantitative PCR, Gel images etc etc etc
Visual data (not imaging or visualisations but photographs, cultural sources etc.)
chemical/structural information (NMR for example)
I also write a lot that does not involve data production (if I tick that box, the other boxes un-tick).
protein crystal structures, chemical syntheses and hit matter

What amount of data did you make available? (select all that apply)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
Relevant research photos linked to specific research data sets
qualitative data and related materials such as topic guides
Full data and its interpretation in a form that could not be made available in a publication. i.e. our own web resource.
we are responsible for open access databases so all the data is always available

What access level did you set for these data? (select all that apply) -Other (please specify)-TEXT
We didn't set this (access upon request via application), Biobank did.
OA, with some material embargoed and others not available (interviews)
Processed data fully available on journal site & supplementary website. Raw data available on request (because it is large & rarely required, not due to privacy concerns)

In which repositories or databases have you made these data available? (and provide names)-Institutional-TEXT
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine's ACT Consortium
KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kenya / ISI Foundation SocioPatterns
Ifakara health institute database system
Data Campus of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit
Research explorer at Edinburgh University
data already available through the Museum of London

In which repositories or databases have you made these data available? (and provide names)-Community/disciplinary-TEXT
Supplemental material; research gate; etc
NCBI, Ensembl, various journals as supplementary data
Imagine York, Explore York Libraries and Archives

In which repositories or databases have you made these data available? (and provide names)-Private repository or website (only for my study)-TEXT
Supplementary websites in my institution for specific publications
International collaboration accross 3 continents
Omics database for transcriptome dataset

In which repositories or databases have you made these data available? (and provide names)-Other-TEXT
Advertise this in publications and say that interested parties can contact me
do not have time for all this Geo and a Wellcome Trust managed site
Sorry, I don't have the institution's name available.

How important are these reasons for you to make data available in a repository, data archive, jou...-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
Ethical approval process does not encompass data sharing and there is no funding to support the process
None of above. Reasons are verification and collaboration

What benefits have you personally experienced from making your research data available? (select a...-Other (please specify)-TEXT
Perhaps only the legitimacy to speak on the topic without sounding like a hypocrite :)
Recognition by my superiors and policy makers
visibility without identifiable direct benefits
I am not aware of any, but collaboration are a possibility
Satisfaction from seeing our data being intersting to others
Impossible to assess within the given time frame
Ensured I made the research reproducible in the best possible way
Impossible to quantify or even take a guess
was able to publish in journals that required it
Requirement of publication in structural biology!

Have you had any bad experiences from making data available to other researchers?-TEXT
Misunderstanding of data structure and therefore incorrect statistical; inferences drawn by user
Rather a funny story, not really a bad experience with a researcher though: our data was used by a group that names themselves as the Creationists. The are not really researchers but they used our article to underline that only god could create such a comlicated biological machine.
Negative responses from all partners/investigators in the work. The feeling of not wanting to share all underlying individual level data set is strong in general.
As required by a journal, had to submit dataset as prerequisite for sending out for review. The repository published the title of the work but not the data itself, however, that was enough for bad interference with the reviewing process. Although it was case of misconduct of the reviewers it could have been avoided if the repository would hold also titles until publication.
generally my data is generated as part of a collaboration and I am not at liberty to share it
Not from making data available in databases, but I have scooped several times from presenting unpublished data at meetings, in that I know for sure in some instances that unscrupulous individuals have used this to generate similar findings which they havesubsequently published. This has not stopped me presenting unpublished data, however, as most people don't do this.
The challenges of explaining to open-access journals the need for a careful approach to open-access with qualitative research data such as interview transcripts
In previous (UKRC funded) project, data sharing requirments came in partway through the project. This cause problems for my research design & ethics, as I had worked on an anonymous/informed consent model for qual interviews, as is standard in social sciece research. I had to go back to participants and ask for consent to archive, which was extremely awkward. In one case the participant felt this was a breach of confidentiality and withdrew consent for me to use their data at all.
Publication of research without discussion or acknowledgement
Require resources to sustain the open access (if for instance open source code)
Other researchers have taken data released pre-publication and used it in their own publications in advance of ours.
Publication without proper acknowledgement, or sub-fair acknowledgement
Considerable time, cost and effort in setting up access. Considerable time and effort to maintain data access. Complaints when it fails
Criticism of our data in a meta-analysis I only saw post publication and no acknowledgement of my preparation and sharing of data in the manuscript
No direct bad experiences, but there is fear among collaborators that we could be scooped on a finding before we make it ourselves
Very minor - Lazy requests from some authors (who want the data available in a format that suits them and expect me to do data conversion) - Loss of citations because people cite databases that include my data rather than my papers that generated the daa
Costs, extra paperwork, time wasted and loosing international colleagues who feel this is a waste of money and time.
it is labour-intensive to share data. There are inevitable queries and requests for clarification that may be years after data were collected. As such there may be no one apart from the senior investigator to manage responses. I now collect using fullyannotated forms and a system of distinguishing original from recoded data fields.
Research have used my public data to conduct further analyses which I intended to do. Frustratingly, they have made a bad job of analysing the data, in part because they refused to work with me.
researcher published work under his name when used data gathered by me
Being scooped based on leads provided in datasets.
IHME expect people to share data but do not want to share analysis methods in return
A close colleague used the data and novel methods described on biorxv to try to publish something related to our results without telling us.
It is time consuming and sometimes difficult to work with researchers that are not known.
when unpublished, some other researchers tried to scoop my paper
Not consulted during collaboration which used unpublished data I have generated. Several years later collaborators want to publish work. Circulated draft revealed that the collaborators had not understood some critical aspects of these unpublished data, wich would have easily been resolved through genuine collaboration. (not sure this is data sharing per se - but me being naive as to whether these were good collaborations to agree to)
Many researchers expect data to be made available but have little understanding of the work required to collect, clean and QC it. Even though 99% of the work in such collaborations is in the data collection and only about 1% in the writing of the paper may people and many journals refuse authorship on the basis of the data collection. This is a major problem for career progression for those researchers who bother to collect data.
There is a growth in research groups that do not feel under obligation to generate any primary data: merely to meta-analyse. These groups often apply quality ratings to data that damage reputations yet they still use the data. There ought to be a quality ating for meta-analysts.
Some worries about being scooped with our own software, or datasets published for one manuscript that we are still working with for follow-up manuscripts, but no (major) incidents so far.
People seem to think you remember all the data and have immediate memory recall.
Not easy to answer, but poster sessions and oral presentations prior to publication can trigger competitors to publish and claim priority.
About 20 years ago - being open about data to a researcher from elsewhere who almost certainly used the information to bring forward their own work and publish before us.

What do you consider to be barriers to making your research data available? -Other (elaborate)-TEXT
There is already far too much supplementary data included in papers. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in stating "data not shown" after a staement in the text. If the results in a paper are important, someone else will repeat them and the truth willout in the end. Publishing one work "clears the air" and allows the mind to focus on new ideas and projects. The opposite is achieved by putting a paper on a website and continually making changes to it. The first author on the paper my leave and even eave science and will not be available to respond. So I am dubious of the virtue of the new journal that the Wellcome Trust are starting, although new ideas and experiments in publishing are to be welcomed!
collaborators in the research do not allow sharing
I often work on secondary data so it is not mine to share
I'm honestly not that familiar with the process, especially for historic data
Data ownership is not clear - who has the right to share?
I do not generate primary data but I help scientist process and store their data and cannot share without their permission
data itself are of limited interest to audience. Engineering results are about the methods, not as much about the resulting database
My datasets are large and very complex. Uploading the raw data would require someone to have a really clear understanding of the paradigm, experimental design and data. Analysing it without all of that information could very easily lead to incorrect conclsions. I worry that these could be used to challenge the conclusions drawn in published work, even if the new conclusions are inaccurate.
data was part of CPRD which is widely available anyways
I do no get this ... whatever I publish is available to the others at once.
My supervisors and co-workers do not consent to making the research outputs available
I do collaborative work so decisions regarding data not always up to me
this concept of research data sharing is very loose and is difficult to encapsulate in this type of survey because of that - e.g. there is a big difference between transcritomics data and mass spectrometry or microscopy data
questions to really relevant as we are a db provider ourselves
the historical research I do does not really produce "data" as such
loss of student training opportunities (who were involved in generating the data and will take longer to publish subsequent papers)
academic norms - i'm not aware of many people doing this
We curate raw data ; other people make it into research data
My qualitative data are co-produced with me as a researcher - they are not neutral pieces of information that can be understood outside the context of my producing them, including the nuances of the interaction that happened in the run up to, immediately efore, and immediately after the interview.
Found these questions difficult to answer

What would motivate you to make (more) data available in a repository, data centre or other onlin...-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
If vastly more data is submitted to repositories we will be buried in "paper' and data. The literature needs simplying not complicated. the key findings are sufficient because if they are important others will try to reproduce them and we will find out nyway whether they stand the test of time.
Influential journals making data sharing mandatory
I am already motivated to share data, and I do share data, and in addition I encourage others to share data.
The types of data that we generate often are not well suited for repository. For example, flow cytometry data. It would be difficult for others to interpret without a lot of metadata for each experimnet. All "omics" sets will be published if useful.
if there was a good way of assigning credit to individuals that make comment/use the data, especially in terms of sharing code
Benefit to low income scientists so they can use data not just give it up to high income countries; regulatory agreements with host governments that provide a mechanism for this
Duty to make data available as computer code, genome data etc
I am committed to open research but want access to be well-managed bearing in mind the expectations created when the data were collected. This sometimes requires involvement in access decisions by people who are aware of those expectations and contextual eatures
Nothing: Effort is enormous for little gain in basic hypothesis driven mechanistic studies
I believe that it is difficult to make a qualitative data (interviews) open access; these type of data are not 'objective' data, the same way that quantitative data might be.
n/a already share the small careful data sets we produce by email
A general consensus in the scientific community that any reanalysis of someone else's dataset s must be held to at least the same level of scrutiny as the original publication.
Availablity of good repository for diagnsotic research specifically methodology work
a waste of time - methods change rapidly and data become outdated
An appropriate storage for the type of data I work on. Currently there is no standard database so we have to host it ourselves (which takes time).
dedicated data scientists and consent forms (like MTA)
having a policy about how certain data can be shared; universities paranoid about data misuse and data sharing agreements. Pseudononymised data still comes under the DPA 1988 and EU/non-EU collaborations very difficult. Its hard enough to keep some of thi data on encrypted password protected databases let alone public repositories
Motivation is sharing data to make better decisions on care
Our raison d'etre is to make data available. Capacity ( which gets back to money ) is the only issue to making more data available.
Robust and convincing measures to de-identify data/research participants
This is dependent on data type and much of my data is not suitable for being deposited in an open access repository.
being forced to do so - although in that case I would consider leaving science

How have you used existing data in your research? (select all that apply)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
Comparison of our own datasets to other tissue systems
To generate hypotheses that we then test
to influence policy development in the NHS
I'm getting frustarted with this questionaire. The convention that research data is a single generic thing is unhelpful - the above list is a halfbaked attempt to categorise different types of data.
made available research resources for other researches
meta-analysis in process, not yet complete
It is not clear to what this question refers. I have used 'existing data' as presented in publications, but not 'raw' data
metaanalysis only from publications, not original
comparing data from different cohort and for development of normative reference ranges
Data Thief to extract and reanalyse data
epidemiological analyses on a large longitudinal dataset

Where do you obtain existing data to use in your research? (select all that apply)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
from the methods sections of publications
I have re-used my own data to re-analyze it and, in the same time, teach another student how to analyse it and how to come up with new hypotheses.
I use multiple national registries, which my team cross-link with considerable time and skill involved to do so. These datasets are anonymized but are potentially identifiable for very rare outcomes (especially rare crimes, for example)
I have also tried requesting author's for data for a paper that stated data would be available upon request, but the author's said they were about to publish a new article on the same data and could not yet share the data with me
However the paper presents it in Materials/Methods - a link to some storage site.
Old data reanalysed to answer new questiobs
not used existing data or i dont understand your question
Our 'research' is for the catalogues created for others to use, showing the contents of archival collections. Our principal source is therefore the internal evidence of the historic record supplemented by information designed to contextualize the collectin / document
Data Thief to extract numerical values from published graphs

What is important when using existing data? (select all that apply)-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
Interpretation is clear and backed up by different experimental tests
data are open (according to the open data definition)
Data is viewable and interactive so that I Know I want to download it!!! Simply making data downloadable is insufficient.
Clear methodology regarding how dataset was created
Uniformity and simplicity of metadata so that datasets can be accessed and understood quickly

In which repositories have you made this code available? (and provide names)-Community/disciplinary-TEXT
ISMRM and ESMRMB workshop materials for download

In which repositories have you made this code available? (and provide names)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
include in online supplementary materials of published paper

What benefits have you personally experienced from making your code available to other researcher...-Other (please specify)-TEXT
Do my analyses more carefully, detect errors, make findings maximally reproducible
More usage of cutting the edge epidemiological approach
Just started sharing - no benefit as of yet
Extension of our work into domains we never considered or explored.
Enable developing country data managers and analysts to apply / extend methods

Have you had any bad experiences from making code available?-TEXT
Not exactly a bad experience - but our code has a lot of users, and it is a lot of work to support them all (solving installation problems, etc.)
Not really bad experiences, but people write for help getting it to run, and it takes time providing support
time consuming (maintaining), expensive (paying for server space), legacy issues
Occasionally people abuse the open software licenses we distribute under but this is rare. Also, many end users forget to cite our methods when they use them in their research.
We've had 3 examples we know of where other entities have violated the terms of our software license (GPL) and stolen our code and used our code for commercial products and not released their work under the GPL.
the additional cost to have to sustain the code and to provide support to the community
Not really bad but time consuming: often have to answer questions - that are actually in most cases clearly explained within coe or paper
use of code without acknowledgement by US collaborators of members of ALPHA network
Making code available is only one side of the problem. The other is to enable users of the code to use it appropriately. By making code available, one can become the teacher of those who want to use it but are not sufficiently skilled--though believe thy are. They can be particularly time consuming when developing new methods/packages as I routinely do.
Packages often become obsolete so original code won't work (and I have not documented the versions... a mistake I try to avoid now).
Takes a lot of my time to maintain code for distribution
I wrote some code specifically to help someone with analysing a dataset. The analysis was published but I was not given any acknowledgement.

What do you consider to be barriers for you to make code available?-Other (elaborate)-TEXT
One tends to get many requests for help having shared code from others trying to adapt it to their own settings. These requests can become distracting. I have even had people be quite aggressive in their expectations of the level of help they expect, prety much saying things like "well you made this code available, and it doesn't work in my setting, and so it's your job to adapt it for me!"
The main problem is that my code works for myself, but if applied to other data it might fail bc. the dataset and variables differ. In order to meaningfully publish a script, one would have to put a lot of effort in to enhance ts quality and annotation sothat it is actually useful and accessible to another person - and I do not have the time and often not even the skills to produce such high-quality code
My personal code is redundant compared to existing scripts / software to which I usually defer
only becuase we have not yet done so but we plan to this year
I plan to share my code very soon on the lab website.
Basically: I will share what I am allowed to, and will happily answer questions to a reasonable extent, but operating system related issues are not solved by me
I am not a coder. My code works to analyse my specific data, but is not a generic tool that could easily be applied to other people's datasets. I wold be particularly concerned that this could lead to someone using my code incorrectly and coming to erroneus conclusions based on my code
I don't think my code is not interesting
My supervisors / colleagues do not permit me to share

What would motivate you to make (more) code available in a repository or other online form? (sele...-Other (please specify)-TEXT
We already share huge amounts of code routinely
I don't think this question will apply to me - I don't use/create innovative code
long-term support for sustainability and maintenance
My code analyses datasets in a simple way
All depends why I need to make the data available
If we had the need to actually write more code

Where do you obtain existing code to use in your research? (select all that apply)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
the other researcher's website; Matlab fileshare
Matlab functions and toolboxes available online

What is important when using existing code? (select all that apply)-Other (please specify)-TEXT
Code is supported and/or maintained by its authors
The code is good, it delivers the functionality wanted, and you can easily adapt it to your needs
it should be useful for the problem I want to solve