| Popis: |
# Background We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing. # Methods Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses. # Results We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members "somewhat agree" that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts \[M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22\]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were "secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)" \[M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56\] and "increased transparency" \[M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43\]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included "lack of metadata standards" \[M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36\], "no incentive" \[M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57\], "inadequate resources" \[M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63\], and "protection of privacy"\[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36\]. # Conclusion Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals' data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted. |
