Completed on 26 Mar 2018 by Krzysztof Jacek Gorgolewski .
Login to endorse this review.
The paper "Data management and sharing in neuroimaging: Practices and perceptions of MRI researchers" characterizes results of a survey attempting to look at how neuroimaging data is being managed and analyzed.
- Found mixing in comments about "open access publishing" and "pre-registration" confusing in context of data management. Those seem to be topics separate from research data management.
- Similarly talking about "data analysis parameters" seem to extend the definition of research data management beyond my personal intuition.
- Lines 101-102. This statement seems to be too broad. I don't believe data sharing has been proposed as a way to deal with suboptimal designs.
- Line 104. As far as I know Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience did require data sharing (via fMRIDC).
- Line 107: I had a brief look at the references cited to support the statement "The majority of researchers now appear to support the concept of sharing data", and I found them not to be as categorical on this topic.
- Line 350: In context of the sentence mentioning "majority" it is unclear what 40% refers to.
- Line 375-378: The definition of "data sharing" proposed by the authors it so broad that it has limited use (for example publishing a paper or giving a talk is considered data sharing). This makes interpreting the rest of the paper confusing.
- I appreciate that the authors share the raw results of the survey.
- I'm glad that the authors acknowledge the potential biases in the results.