Investigating Data-Related Practices in Neuroscience, Psychology, and Beyond Background Research Questions Data Management in Neuroscience Data Management in Psychology Next Steps Neuroscience research presented an ideal test case for studying discipline-specific data management practices. The data involved is often large and complex, small changes in analytical pipelines have significant downstream effects, and there are ongoing efforts to facilitate data sharing and other open science practices. Survey Results To understand the data management practices of active researchers in the field of neuroimaging, we surveyed researchers whose work involves magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) about how they store, organize, document, and preserve their data. A total of 144 researchers from 11 countries, 69 institutions, and a range of research areas participated in our study. Lack of time, professional incentives, and community- supported best practices commonly limiting their current data related practices. Our results indicate that neuroimaging researchers collect data in a variety of forms and that data-related practices differ between and within research groups. Though current levels of adoption were low, a substantial number of participants indicated they would publish preprints, preregister studies, and publish in OA journals in the future. To ensure that our questions would be meaningful to active researchers, we consulted with the neuroimaging community throughout the survey design process. Following up on our survey of MRI researchers, we are currently preparing to investigate data-related practices in the field of psychology. Our survey instrument is being designed in consultation with psychology researchers as well as individuals who work on data-related issues in academic libraries. In addition to advertising through social media and discipline- specific listservs, we will also e-mail corresponding authors of recent articles in psychology journals. We are revising the form and content of our survey to reflect the terminology and tools of psychology research and also to provide us with more information related to limits, motivations, and outstanding needs. 1 2 3 4 5 Field Self Field Self Field Self Da ta Sha ring Da ta Ana lysis Da ta Colle ctio n Maturity Rating Ad-Hoc Mature 1 2 3 4 5 Re late d files ar e lin ked D ocu me nt atio n: Dat a o rg an izat ion File n am in g a nd or ga niza tio n Sen sitiv e d ata is sec ure d Ra w d ata is b ac ked up Da ta Colle ctio n 1 2 3 4 5 Re late d files ar e lin ked Ana lysis wor kflo w is con sist en t Do cum e nta tio n: So ftw ar e a nd co de Do cum e nta tion : An alys is p ipe line Ana lyze d dat a is ba cke d u p Da ta Ana lysis 1 2 3 4 5 Da ta is sh ar ed Pro ce du re s sh ar ed Re sea rc h m at er ials (e. g. stim uli) sh ar ed Da ta cur at ed for r ep rod uc ibility Re late d ma ter ials ar e lin ke d Da ta Sha ring Data Management Maturity Ratings Participants often stated that their RDM practices are more mature than the field as a whole (and they may be right). Participants rated practices related to data collection and analysis as more mature than those related to sharing (and they may be wrong). John A. Borghi, Stanford University Ana E. Van Gulick, Carnegie Mellon University We hope to increase our engagement with the neuroscience and psychology communities and develop follow-up studies and researcher-focused educational materials related to data management and open science. We’re also exploring how to investigate data-related practices in other research areas. Our Paper: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200562 Open Data: https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/5845656.v1 1. How are researchers in different scientific disciplines actually managing and sharing their research data? 2. What are the current levels of adoption for emerging open science practices including publishing preprints, sharing research materials, and publishing in open access journals? 3. How do we, as librari