Scholarlink

<p> The sharing of research outputs is an important endeavor, one that is increasingly required by funders and publishers alike. Here, we catalogued and examined data sharing practices, using our own field of visual search and eye movement behavior as an example. To find outputs from scientific research, we conducted two searches: a Literature Search and a repository search. Overall, we found that researchers in our field generally shared outputs that enabled others to analytically reproduce published results. It was rare for researchers to share outputs that enabled direct replications of their work, and it was also rare for researchers to share raw data that would enable secondary data analyses. Comparing the results of our two searches of the literature, we found that a lack of metadata substantially reduced the rates at which outputs could be found and used. Based on our findings, we present a set of recommendations summarized in our ‘Find It – Access It – Reuse It’ scorecard. The scorecard is intended to assist researchers in sharing outputs in a manner that will enable others to better find, access, and understand them – and this includes researchers in other fields beyond our own.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A sharing practices review of the visual search and eye movements literature reveals recommendations for our field and others

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月25日

查看全文
  • Hayward J. Godwin,
  • Haden Dewis,
  • Peter T. Darch,
  • Michael C. Hout,
  • Daniel Ernst,
  • Philippa Broadbent,
  • Megan Papesh,
  • Jeremy M. Wolfe

摘要

The sharing of research outputs is an important endeavor, one that is increasingly required by funders and publishers alike. Here, we catalogued and examined data sharing practices, using our own field of visual search and eye movement behavior as an example. To find outputs from scientific research, we conducted two searches: a Literature Search and a repository search. Overall, we found that researchers in our field generally shared outputs that enabled others to analytically reproduce published results. It was rare for researchers to share outputs that enabled direct replications of their work, and it was also rare for researchers to share raw data that would enable secondary data analyses. Comparing the results of our two searches of the literature, we found that a lack of metadata substantially reduced the rates at which outputs could be found and used. Based on our findings, we present a set of recommendations summarized in our ‘Find It – Access It – Reuse It’ scorecard. The scorecard is intended to assist researchers in sharing outputs in a manner that will enable others to better find, access, and understand them – and this includes researchers in other fields beyond our own.