The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol

The perceived barriers to data sharing in health... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482" }, "headline": "The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol", "datePublished": "2025-05-09T09:51:14", "dateModified": "2025-08-15T15:28:12", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rrita Bajraktari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fiona Booth" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Marcus Munafo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nicholas Beazley-Long" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Sharing research data is critical for study validation and reuse, yet challenges persist across disciplines, such as psychology1 and biomedical science2. While global initiatives promote open science, understanding localized barriers in specific academic contexts is vital to implementing effective solutions. Objective To investigate the main perceived barriers and reasons preventing data sharing within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences (FHLS) at the University of Bristol, a research-intensive university in the UK. Methods We distributed a comprehensive survey to FHLS researchers, addressing logistical, technical, and cultural challenges. A total of 143 participants provided insights into their experiences with data sharing. Results The primary obstacles identified were time constraints and the complexity of the preparation process, with 34% reporting they “usually” or “always” lack sufficient time to adequately prepare their data for sharing. Additional barriers included not having the rights to share (27%), insufficient technical support (15%), and limited incentives within research teams. Moreover, qualitative responses highlighted a lack of confidence in data sharing infrastructure and guidance. Conclusions These findings highlight the importance of targeted interventions to enhance data-sharing practices. Solutions should prioritize data preparation processes, clarify data ownership policies, and offer tailored training programs. Integrating data-sharing requirements into research workflows from the outset could significantly alleviate these challenges. Our study provides actionable recommendations to inform the development of resources and infrastructure that support a culture of open science within the FHLS at the University of Bristol. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1", "name": "The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences:..." } } ] } Home Browse The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences:... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Bajraktari R, Booth F, Munafo M and Beazley-Long N. The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] Rrita Bajraktari 1 , Fiona Booth 2 , Marcus Munafo 2 , Nicholas Beazley-Long https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-2771 2 Rrita Bajraktari 1 , Fiona Booth 2 , Marcus Munafo 2 , Nicholas Beazley-Long https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-2771 2 PUBLISHED 09 May 2025 Author details Author details 1 Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Brussels, Belgium 2 University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences, Bristol, England, UK Rrita Bajraktari Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Fiona Booth Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Marcus Munafo Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Nicholas Beazley-Long Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway. Abstract Background Sharing research data is critical for study validation and reuse, yet challenges persist across disciplines, such as psychology 1 and biomedical science 2 . While global initiatives promote open science, understanding localized barriers in specific academic contexts is vital to implementing effective solutions. Objective To investigate the main perceived barriers and reasons preventing data sharing within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences (FHLS) at the University of Bristol, a research-intensive university in the UK. Methods We distributed a comprehensive survey to FHLS researchers, addressing logistical, technical, and cultural challenges. A total of 143 participants provided insights into their experiences with data sharing. Results The primary obstacles identified were time constraints and the complexity of the preparation process, with 34% reporting they “usually” or “always” lack sufficient time to adequately prepare their data for sharing. Additional barriers included not having the rights to share (27%), insufficient technical support (15%), and limited incentives within research teams. Moreover, qualitative responses highlighted a lack of confidence in data sharing infrastructure and guidance. Conclusions These findings highlight the importance of targeted interventions to enhance data-sharing practices. Solutions should prioritize data preparation processes, clarify data ownership policies, and offer tailored training programs. Integrating data-sharing requirements into research workflows from the outset could significantly alleviate these challenges. Our study provides actionable recommendations to inform the development of resources and infrastructure that support a culture of open science within the FHLS at the University of Bristol. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Health Sciences, Life Sciences, data sharing, open data, Open Science, reproducibility, reuse, barriers to sharing. Corresponding Author(s) Nicholas Beazley-Long ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Nicholas Beazley-Long Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was supported by a philanthropic donation from Professor John Climax to the University of Bristol. No funding organization has had any role in the survey’s design, implementation or analysis. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Bajraktari R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Bajraktari R, Booth F, Munafo M and Beazley-Long N. The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.1 ) First published: 09 May 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.1 ) Latest published: 15 Aug 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Scientific research is inherently a collective enterprise. The era of solitary discoveries is long past; today, advancing knowledge requires collaboration, both within local research groups and across broader networks. Knowledge sharing has become essential to drive scientific progress and enhance our understanding through community efforts. For centuries, researchers have relied on publishing in peer-reviewed journals as the primary means of sharing their findings. However, accumulating evidence suggests that this traditional approach alone no longer meets the standards required by modern research for example in clinical trials 3 and societal challenges. 4 Poor replicability of research across disciplines in health and life science 5 underscores the need for greater openness and transparency in the research process. 3 Open research promotes openness beyond merely sharing final research findings. Key elements of openness include making datasets available when feasible and ethical, providing detailed documentation of methodologies, including metadata, and sharing research materials and code. Increased transparency not only allows for critical validation but also facilitates replication and enhances the credibility of both the research and researchers. 6 While data sharing was historically not standard practice, it is now an expectation, driven by shifts in research culture and mandates from funders and publishers. 1 However, transitioning to data sharing practices is far from straightforward, encountering challenges in definitions, 7 implementation, 8 ecological concerns (i.e. the energy needed to store the data being too high 9 ) and ensuring equitable practices. 10 We define data sharing as: the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyse in a format which is openly available. While the importance of data sharing is widely recognized, our study focuses on the practical and perceived barriers that researchers face when manuscripts are accepted for publication—a critical stage when data is finalized. By exploring these perceived barriers and reasons, we aim to help researchers recognize and overcome those challenges, where possible, to enable future data sharing. Our study highlights the main reasons for not sharing data within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences (FHLS) at the University of Bristol, a research-intensive university in the UK, and reinforces findings from previous studies elsewhere, adding further evidence to support and expand on existing research and teaching in this area. Methods Study ethics approval The survey design was approved by the University of Bristol’s School of Psychological Science Review Ethics Committee (Ethic approval: 18486, approved 05/06/2024). Informed consent was provided by each participant prior to beginning the survey, research data was anonymous at point of collection and no personally identifiable information was collected. The Participant Information Sheet and consent form are available with the other materials from this study. Survey design To better understand the reasons and perceived barriers preventing research data sharing, participants from across the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences were asked to rate statements related to data sharing at the point of manuscript acceptance. The survey consisted of two sections. In the first section, statements were framed as self-referential (e.g., “I don’t share data because it is too complicated”). In the second section, the same statements were rephrased to describe their colleagues’ behaviours (e.g., “They don’t share because it is too complicated”). Participants rated their responses using a four-point scale: “never,” “sometimes,” “usually,” and “every time.” For analysis, these responses were converted into numeric values ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (every time), and mean scores were compared across groups. Participants had the option to provide additional comments through a free-text box included at the end of each section. The survey was hosted on Microsoft Forms for online administration. Participants were asked to sign in using their university credentials to prevent entry duplication and external access by unauthorized individuals. Survey advertising and incentive The survey targeted health and life science researchers and was advertised through faculty research mailing lists and displayed on digital screens across the faculty. The survey remained open for one month. To encourage participation, three £50 prepaid gift cards were offered as incentives, with winners selected randomly using Google’s random number generator immediately following survey closure. Survey statement development The survey items were developed based on themes from four key studies addressing data-sharing practices and barriers. Perrier and colleagues 11 identified issues such as data integrity, research conduct, and feasibility challenges, while Gomes et al. 12 emphasized barriers like process complexity, lack of incentives, and reuse concerns, and Gownaris et al. 13 highlighted early-career researchers' concerns, including fear of misuse and career implications. Toelch and Ostwald 14 provided best practices for transparent research, shaping the phrasing of survey items. A total of 21 items were selected from these themes. In the first section of the survey, the items were framed as personal statements (e.g., “I’m unsure about the process”) to foster self-reflection and participant engagement, consistent with findings from D’Ailly et al. 15 and Brenner. 16 The second section, where the statements applied to colleagues (e.g., “They are unsure about the process”), introduced psychological distance, which can reduce social desirability bias. 17 , 18 Thematic analysis of comments After rating the statements, participants had the opportunity to leave comments, which were subjected to a thematic analysis. This analysis was conducted independently by two researchers using a systematic approach: read through all comments, then identify themes on second read-through, and categorize these themes into broader categories. Once both researchers completed their independent analyses, they shared and discussed their identified themes and categorizations to reach a consensus. In cases where disagreements persisted, a third researcher was consulted to resolve the differences and finalize the thematic categorization. This collaborative process helped to improve the reliability and validity of the thematic analysis. 19 Results Participant demographics A total of 143 active researchers completed the survey, composed of 114 research staff, 28 postgraduate research (PGR) students and 1 undergraduate student. The estimated response rate across the faculty research staff was 9.1% (Supplementary Figure S1) and researchers from all career stages contributed to the survey (Supplementary Figure S2). General survey findings The primary perceived barrier to data sharing was a lack of time, identified as the top-ranked barrier in both sections of the survey. The statement “I/they don’t have enough time to prepare my/their data for sharing” had the highest mean scores in part 1 (personal framing: 1.19) and part 2 (colleague framing: 1.42). Figure 1 (self-referential) and Figure 2 (colleague referential) rank the statements by mean score. The top ranked statements were: • The lack of time to prepare data for sharing • The complexity of the process (“too complicated”) • Managing and sharing large datasets (“too many data files” and “difficulty sharing large datasets”) • Lack of rights to share data • Inadequate infrastructure • Lack of team support (“my team doesn’t do it”) • Lack of knowledge on how to share data Figure 1. Results for perceived barriers to data sharing with personal framing. This figure illustrates participant responses to statements relating to perceived barriers to data sharing, framed as applying to themselves. The white numbers within each bar represent the absolute number of participants who selected “Never,” “Sometimes,” “Usually,” or “Every Time,” as indicated in the legend. The bold numbers on the right of each bar show the mean score for each statement. Mean scores were calculated by assigning numerical values to responses (0 = Never, 1 = Sometimes, 2 = Usually, 3 = Every Time), multiplying these values by the number of responses, and dividing the total by 143 (the number of participants). Figure 2. Results for perceived barriers to data sharing with colleagues framing (‘They’). This figure illustrates participant responses to statements relating to perceived barriers to data sharing, framed as applying to colleagues. The white numbers within each bar represent the absolute number of participants who selected “Never,” “Sometimes,” “Usually,” or “Every Time,” as indicated in the legend. The bold numbers on the right of each bar show the mean score for each statement. Mean scores were calculated by assigning numerical values to responses (0 = Never, 1 = Sometimes, 2 = Usually, 3 = Every Time), multiplying these values by the number of responses, and dividing the total by 143 (the number of participants). These results suggest that barriers are not only logistical but also cultural and knowledge-based. In part 2, similar barriers emerged but in a different order, with “Their team doesn’t do it” rising to second place. It is also interesting to observe that all mean scores for each statement were higher and that the top 8 statements in part 1 match those in part 2. This positive difference could be explained by a potential desirability bias or self-deception. Career stage and departmental differences When breaking down the responses to the different career stages a similar general pattern to the combined responses was observed (Supplementary Figure S3), with “not enough time” being the top reason in two thirds of the career stages and the complexity around sharing (“too complicated”, “too many data files”) scoring highly. However, PGR students expressed more concerns about: • Managing large datasets • Risks of plagiarism • Sharing intellectual property Differences between departments (Supplementary Figure S4), aligning with other published findings, 2 also reflected disciplinary nuances: • Population Health Sciences: The top barrier was the lack of rights to share sensitive data, reflecting the challenges and ethical concerns when handling health-related datasets. • Psychological Sciences: Responses highlighted concerns about anonymising and sharing human-centred data. • Biochemistry: The primary barrier was managing large and complex datasets. These subtle differences between the schools and career stages will help us to tailor our internal training appropriately for difference audiences. Survey free text comments Of the 143 participants, 57 left detailed comments, which were analysed thematically to provide additional insights. This process led to the identification of 14 themes consisting of some that were linked to the pre-defined statements (e.g. a lack of time), also others that were not covered by the statements (e.g. fear of failure to replicate, fear of error detection). This analysis has provided additional context enriching our understanding of the challenges and perceived barriers. The full thematic analysis is available in the available extended data. Below are examples of the identified themes and additional context. • Data organization and clarity: disorganized datasets not designed for sharing can lead to misinterpretation. • Training and support gaps: a lack of accessible guidance and resources on data sharing was frequently mentioned especially guidance on sharing qualitative data. • Challenges in anonymizing qualitative data were highlighted by several participants. • Fear of error detection and reproducibility issues: new concerns for our study emerged about criticism over errors or failed replication when data is shared. Participants also highlighted distinctions within certain barriers, such as the “lack of benefit” theme. For example, 6 comments differentiated between a lack of personal benefit and a broader perception of the practice being “useless” for the field. This rich qualitative data will inform our training resources and workshops and enable the refinement of the statements for further iterations of the survey. The comments in full and the identified themes are available with the extended data. 20 Discussion This survey aligns with previous findings on the barriers to data sharing. 11 – 14 For instance, the predominant challenges identified, such as time constraints, complexity of data sharing, and lack of incentives, mirror those reported in the literature. But while our results reveal consistent tendencies with these earlier studies, no significance tests were conducted. Our findings highlight several areas that could be of some interest for further investigation. First, the analysis of participants’ comments suggests that greater specificity in survey items addressing complexity would be valuable. For example, the item “it is too complicated” could be refined to distinguish between technical challenges, organizational issues, and insufficient infrastructure. This distinction would enable future research to better identify and address specific barriers. Similarly, the item “I don’t see any benefits” should differentiate between personal perceptions (e.g., “no benefit for me”) and broader views of utility to the scientific enterprise. This level of detail could inform tailored interventions, such as workshops to raise awareness of data-sharing benefits or institutional policies offering incentives for researchers. Another important consideration for future research is the impact of question phrasing on responses. Our survey’s dual framing of items (“I” vs. “They”) provides preliminary evidence of a potential social desirability bias. As data sharing becomes increasingly common, it is possible that open science practices are perceived as socially desirable behaviors, influencing self-reported attitudes and behaviors. Investigating this bias further could provide valuable insights into the evolving perception of open practices within the scientific community. To our knowledge, no prior survey has employed this dual framing approach, making our study a novel contribution to the evaluation of scientific practices. Finally, the comments from our participants revealed an additional barrier not initially considered: fear of error detection or lack of reproducibility. This concern underscores the importance of fostering a culture of transparency that minimizes stigma around errors. An initiative to achieve this was recently launched with the Estimating The Reliability & Robustness Of Research (ERROR) project. 21 Future surveys should include items explicitly addressing this issue to capture its prevalence and impact on data-sharing behavior. Limitations and recommendations for future surveys This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, participants were not given the option to skip statements they felt uncomfortable answering or did not know how to respond to, which may have affected the reliability of some responses. Second, we did not collect information about the primary research data type (e.g., quantitative or qualitative) for each participant. Including this information in future surveys could provide important context for understanding the specific barriers faced by researchers working with different types of data. Third, the sample size was limited for certain schools, which may have introduced bias in the representation of discipline-specific challenges. Conducting future surveys during periods when more researchers are available, such as outside of the summer months, could help improve response rates and ensure a more representative sample. Despite these limitations, the survey has provided direct evidence of the barriers to data sharing at the University of Bristol and we consider these findings to be generalizable to other similar research-intensive institutions. These valuable insights have informed in-house training and guidance initiatives. Specifically, these results have shaped resources aimed at improving data management skills for data sharing and reproducible research practices. Additionally, this survey serves as a benchmark for future iterations, allowing for the evaluation of progress in addressing the barriers identified and refining strategies to support data sharing within the academic community. Ethical considerations and consent to participate The survey design was approved by the University of Bristol’s School of Psychological Science Review Ethics Committee (Ethic approval: 18486, approved 05/06/2024). A Participation Information Sheet (PIS) was made available to the participants introducing the background and objectives of the study, that their research data (composed of their ratings to the statements and any comments) was anonymous at the point of collection, therefore not containing any personally identifiable information, and that the research data would be made open following the completion of the study. Written informed consent was collected digitally via Microsoft Forms before the survey began. Participants provided consent by ticking a checkbox. If consent was not given, the survey could not be started. Following the completion of the survey participants had the opportunity to enter a prize draw to win one of three £50 gift cards by submitting their university email address. These email addresses were stored separately, and not linked to, the anonymous research data and following the prize draw the email addresses were immediately deleted. Data availability Study data, code, figures and supplementary figures are openly available on the University of Bristol’s open repository ( https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.qldqe39bi5yd22hkg5q3zce3i ) 22 Data and figures are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). The deposit includes the following: • Readme.txt - A readme file including descriptive project metadata and the computing requirements to reuse the code • UoB_FHLS_2024DataAvailabilitySurvey.csv – the raw data in csv • UoB FHLS 2024DataAvailabilitySurvey.xls – raw data in xlsx • Excel_to_Figures_DATA_survey.R – code to generate figures Reporting guidelines This research followed the Consensus-based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies, CROSS. 23 The checklist accompanying this article is available. 20 Extended data Additional data and study materials are available in the project OSF deposit 20 ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V2XP3 ) available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). This deposit includes the following: • ParticipantInformationSheet.docx – the PIS • OnlineConsentStatementBarriersToDA.docx – consent statement • CrossSurveyGuidelines.docx – guidelines followed for this survey • F1000ResDAQualiThemeExtraction.xlxs – theme analysis of participants’ comments Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the participants that took the time to complete the survey. References 1. Hardwicke TE, Mathur MB, MacDonald K, et al. : Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: Evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018; 5 (8): 180448. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Tedersoo L, Küngas R, Oras E, et al. : Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci. Data. 2021; 8 (1): 192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Bauchner H, Golub RM, Fontanarosa PB: Data Sharing: An Ethical and Scientific Imperative. JAMA. 2016; 315 (12): 1238. Publisher Full Text 4. Gelenbe E, Brasseur G, Chefneux L, et al. : On sharing knowledge and fostering ‘open science’. Ubiquity. 2021; 2021 (May): 1–13. Publisher Full Text 5. Świątkowski W, Dompnier B: Replicability Crisis in Social Psychology: Looking at the Past to Find New Pathways for the Future. Int. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2017; 30 (1): 111. Publisher Full Text 6. Nosek BA, Hardwicke TE, Moshontz H, et al. : Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2022; 73 (1): 719–748. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Elliott KC, Resnik DB: Making Open Science Work for Science and Society. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019; 127 (7): 75002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. Clark MP, Luce CH, AghaKouchak A, et al. : Open Science: Open Data, Open Models, … and Open Publications?. Water Resour. Res. 2021; 57 (4): e2020WR029480. Publisher Full Text 9. Farley SS, Dawson A, Goring SJ, et al. : Situating Ecology as a Big-Data Science: Current Advances, Challenges, and Solutions. Bioscience. 2018; 68 (8): 563–576. Publisher Full Text 10. How to share data—Not just equally, but equitably. Nature. 2023; 622 (7983): 431–432. Publisher Full Text 11. Perrier L, Blondal E, MacDonald H: The views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers with data sharing and reuse: A meta-synthesis. PLOS ONE. 2020; 15 (2): e0229182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. Gomes DGE, Pottier P, Crystal-Ornelas R, et al. : Why don’t we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2022; 289 (1987): 20221113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Gownaris NJ, Vermeir K, Bittner M-I, et al. : Barriers to Full Participation in the Open Science Life Cycle among Early Career Researchers. Data Sci. J. 2022; 21 : 2. Publisher Full Text 14. Toelch U, Ostwald D: Digital open science—Teaching digital tools for reproducible and transparent research. PLoS Biol. 2018; 16 (7): e2006022. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. D’Ailly HH, Murray HG, Corkill A: Cognitive Effects of Self-Referencing. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 1995; 20 (1): 88–113. Publisher Full Text 16. Brenner PS: Advancing Theories of Socially Desirable Responding: How Identity Processes Influence Answers to “Sensitive Questions”.Brenner PS, editor. Understanding Survey Methodology. Springer International Publishing; 2020; Vol. 4 . : pp. 45–65. Publisher Full Text 17. Krumpal I: Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Qual. Quant. 2013; 47 (4): 2025–2047. Publisher Full Text 18. Larson RB: Controlling social desirability bias. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2019; 61 (5): 534–547. Publisher Full Text 19. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, et al. : Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods. 2017; 16 (1). Publisher Full Text 20. Bajraktari R, Booth F, Beazley-Long N: Barriers to Data availability at the University of Bristol. OSF. 2025. Publisher Full Text 21. ERROR Project Team: Estimating The Reliability & Robustness Of Research (ERROR) project.Cited 2025 Apr 15. Reference Source 22. Bajraktari R, Booth F, Beazley-Long N: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol.2025. Publisher Full Text 23. Sharma A, Minh Duc N, Thang LL, et al. : A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2021; 36 : 3179–3187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 May 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Brussels, Belgium 2 University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences, Bristol, England, UK Rrita Bajraktari Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Fiona Booth Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Marcus Munafo Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing Nicholas Beazley-Long Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was supported by a philanthropic donation from Professor John Climax to the University of Bristol. No funding organization has had any role in the survey’s design, implementation or analysis. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 15 Aug 2025, 14:482 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.2 version 1 Published: 09 May 2025, 14:482 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.1 Copyright © 2025 Bajraktari R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Bajraktari R, Booth F, Munafo M and Beazley-Long N. The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 09 May 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Reichmann S. Reviewer Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r386103 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1#referee-response-386103 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Jun 2025 Stefan Reichmann , Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r386103 Article: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: A survey at the University of Bristol Reviewer: Dr. Stefan Reichmann Article Synopsis The article investigates the perceived barriers to data sharing in ... Continue reading READ ALL Article: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: A survey at the University of Bristol Reviewer: Dr. Stefan Reichmann Article Synopsis The article investigates the perceived barriers to data sharing in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at the University of Bristol. A survey (n=143) was distributed addressing 3 types of perceived barriers: cultural, logistical, and technical. The survey found the primary obstacles to be time constraints and the complexity of the preparation process, with 34% reporting they “usually” or “always” lack sufficient time to adequately prepare their data for sharing. Additional barriers included not having the rights to share (27%), insufficient technical support (15%), and limited incentives within research teams. Moreover, qualitative responses highlighted a lack of confidence in data sharing infrastructure and guidance. Reviewer Comments This is a carefully executed study with a timely research question. Nevertheless, there are some problems with the work that should be addressed. The part of the work that I take issue with the most is the definition of data sharing given, which seems to me to be unnecessarily restrictive. The authors define data sharing as “the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyze in a format which is openly available”. There are many other ways that data sharing happens, and by choosing such a restricted definition, the study risks missing quite a bit of the practice that may (or may not – this would be an interesting finding in its own right) be happening at FHLS. For instance, FHLS might have invested in data sharing infrastructure (an institutional repository, say), but respondents predominantly choose to share their data via other means or not share them at all – this would be undetectable with this survey. Christine Borgman (and others) have documented data sharing practices extensively, finding large variance across research settings in the ways research data are defined, produced, shared, reused, etc. I believe that defining data sharing as stated above restricts the domain of study too much – the phenomenon of data sharing is simply much broader than the study admits to. As is probably evident, this critique is written from the standpoint of a qualitative researcher who is mindful that the phenomenon of data sharing is richer and much more varied than the definition given. The narrowness of the definition has ramifications for the study design. Since the concept has not been defined vis-à-vis respondents (at least, this is not mentioned in the study), we do not know which definition of data sharing respondents subscribe to (whether a narrow definition, as is given by the authors, or a wide definition as I suggested above). In that sense, the responses given would be very difficult to interpret adequately. The scale used is not fit for the way the questions are phrased, at least in some cases (whenever the Likert scale is interpreted as “Never” to “Every time”): For example, “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated” seems to me to be a yes or no question. Applying the Likert scale in this (and other) cases seems forced, to say the least. In this particular example, a different question formulation (and scale) would have been more appropriate. In particular, the question combines two variables (“I don’t share data” and “Data sharing is complicated”) which make interpretation difficult and risks losing information. Additionally, it creates ambiguity in interpretation, because respondents could be assenting to either one of the two statements in their response. Because the question combines them, it becomes impossible to interpret meaningfully. A better way to approach this would have been to ask, in a separate question, whether respondents share their data, how often, with whom, and by what means, and then to ask about barriers. The gulf between the way the questions are phrased and the response options offered becomes even more apparent when considering the second framing of the questions (“they” instead of “I”). There, it seems that very few respondents chose the option “Every time” for all of the survey items. I suspect that this is due to the way the questions are phrased and does not necessarily reflect how respondents view their colleagues. At the very least, a considerable number of statements would have to be assessed based on an “Completely agree-Completely disagree”-Likert Scale. Also, many of the questions logically imply an “I don’t know”-option. That respondents did not have the option to skip questions either (a limitation the authors acknowledge), in my view, hampers the results further. This could have been solved relatively easily by including an “I don’t know/Cannot answer” option. In general, while a survey should be constructed so as to yield generalizable, quantifiable results, the questions should still be as close as possible to our normal way of speaking, i.e. even if responses are collected on a five-(four, three)-point-scale, the questions should be as close as possible to the way respondents normally speak about the issues in question. Consequently, either the statements or the response options need to be rephrased (where in fact, I would opt for the latter in most cases). In addition, I would need to see the questions that respondents were actually asked – at present, the article merely presents the statements that respondents rated but I suspect that there would have been some kind of prompt. Further, I am having trouble understanding the rationale of the two question framings. While I do think that reducing social desirability bias is laudable, I am hesitant to concur with the way this has been achieved because the resulting survey questions are difficult to interpret at face value – “they” is highly ambiguous, and the quality of a response changes considerably depending on how a respondent interprets “they” (colleagues can be people in the same department, field, even university – we don’t really know what group this is referring to). For instance, “They have difficulty sharing very large datasets” could be taken to refer to colleagues in the same field, which suggests a lack of skills, or it could be referring to colleagues in other disciplines, for which an explanation seems a little more complicated. In addition, some of the statements make considerably less sense when substituting “I” for “They”, for instance “Their team doesn’t do it” seems to me to be very difficult to interpret – whose team? In terms of the findings, I would expect them to mirror those found in the literature since the survey items have been developed based on landmark studies, but I would caution against interpreting these findings as simply confirming previous work; rather, because of the survey design, I would argue that the work reproduces the assumptions built into the work that the present article builds upon. In order to be of some help, I would like to end with some suggestions for how to improve the paper: The simplest (but probably most time-consuming) would be to follow-up with respondents across the disciplines represented in the sample and ask them for an interview. This would give respondents space to clarify how they interpret the core ideas used in the survey (such as “data sharing”, “reproducibility”, etc.), and to clarify whom they regard as in- resp. outgroup. Other than that, I think the most sensible course would be to revise the questions as indicated (I would be happy to offer my help there). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sociology of Science, Science and Technology Studies, Open Science, Information Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Reichmann S. Reviewer Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r386103 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1#referee-response-386103 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Nicholas Beazley-Long , University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences, Bristol, UK 23 Aug 2025 Author Response We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. Addressing the concern about the definition of data sharing used in this study. Our aim was to investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and underlying reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underpinning research manuscripts, at the point of acceptance for publication across Health and Life Sciences at Bristol. To this end, we defined data sharing at the point of manuscript acceptance as: the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyse the data in a format which is openly available. We have adjusted the text in the introduction to clarify this definition. To clarify that respondents were instructed to consider barriers to sharing data underlying manuscripts’ findings at the point of publication acceptance we have revised the title accordingly. We specifically chose this time point in the research lifecycle because at this point the data underlying manuscript findings are - in the vast majority - finalised and this time represents a critical decision-making moment when researchers are often required to consider data availability for publication. In addition, journal and funder policies around data sharing typically come into effect at this time. Focusing on this stage allows us to assess perceived and experienced barriers at the point when research data sharing is most actionable and policy-relevant. We have revised the article to include the text that instructed respondents how to rate the statements in part 1 and part 2. See below. These instructions help to define the ‘what’ (data underlying the manuscript) and the ‘when’ (at point of acceptance) for the respondents to consider. We did not want to state the exact types of data to consider (i.e raw, processed, summary, primary/secondary, methodological, unstructured etc) as this could have been restrictive. The instructing text in the survey. Part 1. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Part 2. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to others around you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Clarification of the Framing in Part 2 ("They" Framing) The reviewer raised a concern that participants may not know what their colleagues do or don’t do in respect to sharing research data. However, the survey did not ask about colleagues specifically. The actual question posed was: “How often each statement below applies to others around you...?” This wording was intentionally chosen to capture participants’ perceptions of the data sharing practices and barriers surrounding them — not objective knowledge of others’ behaviours. This framing has been shown to reduce potential social desirability bias. Clarification of the Question Format Reviewer 2 also questioned the framing of some items, such as “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated,” suggesting these are yes/no questions. However, the survey asked participants to indicate how often each statement applied, not whether it applied or not. This frequency-based approach was deliberate: researchers may encounter certain barriers (e.g., complexity, time constraints) in some projects but not others. A binary yes/no format would have been overly restrictive and failed to capture this variability. By asking about frequency, we aimed to better understand the prevalence of different barriers across contexts. Reproduction of assumptions argument The reviewer makes the argument that our survey design reproduces assumptions built into the study on which this article builds. However, our intention was to assess the prevalence of barriers and underlying reasons for data sharing challenges in Health and Life Sciences research. To this end, we developed 21 statements based on existing literature, complemented by free-text boxes to allow respondents to share additional thoughts, including barriers not captured by the predefined items. This approach builds on established knowledge in the field, which we believe is essential rather than limiting and it would have been remiss of us to ignore. We acknowledge, that if our primary aim had been to uncover entirely new or undocumented barriers, a different methodological approach would have been needed. However, our focus was on identifying the most prevalent barriers in order to inform practical strategies for addressing them. We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. Addressing the concern about the definition of data sharing used in this study. Our aim was to investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and underlying reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underpinning research manuscripts, at the point of acceptance for publication across Health and Life Sciences at Bristol. To this end, we defined data sharing at the point of manuscript acceptance as: the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyse the data in a format which is openly available. We have adjusted the text in the introduction to clarify this definition. To clarify that respondents were instructed to consider barriers to sharing data underlying manuscripts’ findings at the point of publication acceptance we have revised the title accordingly. We specifically chose this time point in the research lifecycle because at this point the data underlying manuscript findings are - in the vast majority - finalised and this time represents a critical decision-making moment when researchers are often required to consider data availability for publication. In addition, journal and funder policies around data sharing typically come into effect at this time. Focusing on this stage allows us to assess perceived and experienced barriers at the point when research data sharing is most actionable and policy-relevant. We have revised the article to include the text that instructed respondents how to rate the statements in part 1 and part 2. See below. These instructions help to define the ‘what’ (data underlying the manuscript) and the ‘when’ (at point of acceptance) for the respondents to consider. We did not want to state the exact types of data to consider (i.e raw, processed, summary, primary/secondary, methodological, unstructured etc) as this could have been restrictive. The instructing text in the survey. Part 1. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Part 2. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to others around you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Clarification of the Framing in Part 2 ("They" Framing) The reviewer raised a concern that participants may not know what their colleagues do or don’t do in respect to sharing research data. However, the survey did not ask about colleagues specifically. The actual question posed was: “How often each statement below applies to others around you...?” This wording was intentionally chosen to capture participants’ perceptions of the data sharing practices and barriers surrounding them — not objective knowledge of others’ behaviours. This framing has been shown to reduce potential social desirability bias. Clarification of the Question Format Reviewer 2 also questioned the framing of some items, such as “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated,” suggesting these are yes/no questions. However, the survey asked participants to indicate how often each statement applied, not whether it applied or not. This frequency-based approach was deliberate: researchers may encounter certain barriers (e.g., complexity, time constraints) in some projects but not others. A binary yes/no format would have been overly restrictive and failed to capture this variability. By asking about frequency, we aimed to better understand the prevalence of different barriers across contexts. Reproduction of assumptions argument The reviewer makes the argument that our survey design reproduces assumptions built into the study on which this article builds. However, our intention was to assess the prevalence of barriers and underlying reasons for data sharing challenges in Health and Life Sciences research. To this end, we developed 21 statements based on existing literature, complemented by free-text boxes to allow respondents to share additional thoughts, including barriers not captured by the predefined items. This approach builds on established knowledge in the field, which we believe is essential rather than limiting and it would have been remiss of us to ignore. We acknowledge, that if our primary aim had been to uncover entirely new or undocumented barriers, a different methodological approach would have been needed. However, our focus was on identifying the most prevalent barriers in order to inform practical strategies for addressing them. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Nicholas Beazley-Long , University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences, Bristol, UK 23 Aug 2025 Author Response We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. Addressing the concern about the definition of data sharing used in this study. Our aim was to investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and underlying reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underpinning research manuscripts, at the point of acceptance for publication across Health and Life Sciences at Bristol. To this end, we defined data sharing at the point of manuscript acceptance as: the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyse the data in a format which is openly available. We have adjusted the text in the introduction to clarify this definition. To clarify that respondents were instructed to consider barriers to sharing data underlying manuscripts’ findings at the point of publication acceptance we have revised the title accordingly. We specifically chose this time point in the research lifecycle because at this point the data underlying manuscript findings are - in the vast majority - finalised and this time represents a critical decision-making moment when researchers are often required to consider data availability for publication. In addition, journal and funder policies around data sharing typically come into effect at this time. Focusing on this stage allows us to assess perceived and experienced barriers at the point when research data sharing is most actionable and policy-relevant. We have revised the article to include the text that instructed respondents how to rate the statements in part 1 and part 2. See below. These instructions help to define the ‘what’ (data underlying the manuscript) and the ‘when’ (at point of acceptance) for the respondents to consider. We did not want to state the exact types of data to consider (i.e raw, processed, summary, primary/secondary, methodological, unstructured etc) as this could have been restrictive. The instructing text in the survey. Part 1. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Part 2. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to others around you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Clarification of the Framing in Part 2 ("They" Framing) The reviewer raised a concern that participants may not know what their colleagues do or don’t do in respect to sharing research data. However, the survey did not ask about colleagues specifically. The actual question posed was: “How often each statement below applies to others around you...?” This wording was intentionally chosen to capture participants’ perceptions of the data sharing practices and barriers surrounding them — not objective knowledge of others’ behaviours. This framing has been shown to reduce potential social desirability bias. Clarification of the Question Format Reviewer 2 also questioned the framing of some items, such as “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated,” suggesting these are yes/no questions. However, the survey asked participants to indicate how often each statement applied, not whether it applied or not. This frequency-based approach was deliberate: researchers may encounter certain barriers (e.g., complexity, time constraints) in some projects but not others. A binary yes/no format would have been overly restrictive and failed to capture this variability. By asking about frequency, we aimed to better understand the prevalence of different barriers across contexts. Reproduction of assumptions argument The reviewer makes the argument that our survey design reproduces assumptions built into the study on which this article builds. However, our intention was to assess the prevalence of barriers and underlying reasons for data sharing challenges in Health and Life Sciences research. To this end, we developed 21 statements based on existing literature, complemented by free-text boxes to allow respondents to share additional thoughts, including barriers not captured by the predefined items. This approach builds on established knowledge in the field, which we believe is essential rather than limiting and it would have been remiss of us to ignore. We acknowledge, that if our primary aim had been to uncover entirely new or undocumented barriers, a different methodological approach would have been needed. However, our focus was on identifying the most prevalent barriers in order to inform practical strategies for addressing them. We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. Addressing the concern about the definition of data sharing used in this study. Our aim was to investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and underlying reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underpinning research manuscripts, at the point of acceptance for publication across Health and Life Sciences at Bristol. To this end, we defined data sharing at the point of manuscript acceptance as: the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyse the data in a format which is openly available. We have adjusted the text in the introduction to clarify this definition. To clarify that respondents were instructed to consider barriers to sharing data underlying manuscripts’ findings at the point of publication acceptance we have revised the title accordingly. We specifically chose this time point in the research lifecycle because at this point the data underlying manuscript findings are - in the vast majority - finalised and this time represents a critical decision-making moment when researchers are often required to consider data availability for publication. In addition, journal and funder policies around data sharing typically come into effect at this time. Focusing on this stage allows us to assess perceived and experienced barriers at the point when research data sharing is most actionable and policy-relevant. We have revised the article to include the text that instructed respondents how to rate the statements in part 1 and part 2. See below. These instructions help to define the ‘what’ (data underlying the manuscript) and the ‘when’ (at point of acceptance) for the respondents to consider. We did not want to state the exact types of data to consider (i.e raw, processed, summary, primary/secondary, methodological, unstructured etc) as this could have been restrictive. The instructing text in the survey. Part 1. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Part 2. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to others around you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Clarification of the Framing in Part 2 ("They" Framing) The reviewer raised a concern that participants may not know what their colleagues do or don’t do in respect to sharing research data. However, the survey did not ask about colleagues specifically. The actual question posed was: “How often each statement below applies to others around you...?” This wording was intentionally chosen to capture participants’ perceptions of the data sharing practices and barriers surrounding them — not objective knowledge of others’ behaviours. This framing has been shown to reduce potential social desirability bias. Clarification of the Question Format Reviewer 2 also questioned the framing of some items, such as “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated,” suggesting these are yes/no questions. However, the survey asked participants to indicate how often each statement applied, not whether it applied or not. This frequency-based approach was deliberate: researchers may encounter certain barriers (e.g., complexity, time constraints) in some projects but not others. A binary yes/no format would have been overly restrictive and failed to capture this variability. By asking about frequency, we aimed to better understand the prevalence of different barriers across contexts. Reproduction of assumptions argument The reviewer makes the argument that our survey design reproduces assumptions built into the study on which this article builds. However, our intention was to assess the prevalence of barriers and underlying reasons for data sharing challenges in Health and Life Sciences research. To this end, we developed 21 statements based on existing literature, complemented by free-text boxes to allow respondents to share additional thoughts, including barriers not captured by the predefined items. This approach builds on established knowledge in the field, which we believe is essential rather than limiting and it would have been remiss of us to ignore. We acknowledge, that if our primary aim had been to uncover entirely new or undocumented barriers, a different methodological approach would have been needed. However, our focus was on identifying the most prevalent barriers in order to inform practical strategies for addressing them. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Boté-Vericad JJ. Reviewer Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r384382 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1#referee-response-384382 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Jun 2025 Juan-José Boté-Vericad , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r384382 The article is well-organized and clearly communicates its objective. Current literature is cited across the introduction and methods sections. Some introductory sentences are slightly redundant or overly long. Introduction needs only minor stylistic refinements for clarity. ... Continue reading READ ALL The article is well-organized and clearly communicates its objective. Current literature is cited across the introduction and methods sections. Some introductory sentences are slightly redundant or overly long. Introduction needs only minor stylistic refinements for clarity. Survey design is rigorous and includes ethical approval documentation. Dual framing (I/They) is a thoughtful method reducing bias.Thematic analysis methodology is clear, collaborative, and appropriately validated. Framing encourages reflection and distinguishes self versus group perceptions. Survey questions are described clearly and linked to past research. All source materials, survey documents, and code are openly available. Analysis steps are explained and data structure is well described. Qualitative coding steps include inter-rater review and consensus process. Raw data is shared via the University of Bristol repository. Files include survey results, R code, and metadata readme. Repository uses Creative Commons license ensuring open data access. Documentation enables re-use and verification by external researchers. No file or description appears to be missing or unclear. This article is suitable for publication after minor edits. Language in introduction and discussion could be slightly condensed. Consider clarifying broad terms like “too complicated” in future work. The study is robust, timely, and methodologically well executed. It contributes valuable evidence for improving data sharing culture. I recommend acceptance with very minor stylistic improvements. This is a useful model for open research infrastructure surveys. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Open Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Boté-Vericad JJ. Reviewer Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r384382 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1#referee-response-384382 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 May 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 15 Aug 25 read read read Version 1 09 May 25 read read Juan-José Boté-Vericad , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Stefan Reichmann , Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria Anna Catharina Vieira Armond , University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada Olavo B. Amaral , Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Gabriel G. Costa , Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Centro de Ciencias da Saude, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Amaral O et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Oct 2025 | for Version 2 Olavo B. Amaral , Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Gabriel G. Costa , Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Centro de Ciencias da Saude, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2025 Amaral O et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Summary: The study aims to investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and underlying reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underpinning manuscripts at the point of acceptance for publication across Health and Life Sciences at the University of Bristol. The manuscript is clear and well-written, and the research question is relevant, although generalizability is limited by the specificity of the sample. Major points: - There is a data inconsistency between the results section, which mentions 114 research staff responses and Supplementary Table S1, which mentions 115 responses. Please revise. - In spite of the statement “see Extended Data for the full list of statements”, we could not find the actual survey instrument in the OSF page, and could only find the statements in the raw data spreadsheet. Also, it would be much more useful to provide a direct link to such materials, rather than pointing to the Extended Data section, which then points to the general OSF page. The same holds for supplementary figures, which would be more easily accessible if they were made part of the paper (or via a direct link to each figure in the OSF). - We don’t think that the difference in mean scores between the “I” and “people around me” responses is evidence for social desirability bias. First, I’d assume that, due to responder bias, people answering such a survey will have above-average interest in data sharing and may be genuinely more prone to doing it than the those around them. Second, as the answer options are “never/sometimes/usually/always”, it is expected that the “never” and “always” categories should shrink if one is talking about a large group of people rather than about a single person (as variance in the larger group will lead “sometimes” and “usually” to be more likely). From the figure, this indeed seems to be the case. Reduction in “never” responses (which are the most prevalent responses in the personal section) would thus by itself lead to a greater average in the third-party condition, even with no bias present. - As the authors make some comparisons between response categories, it might be helpful to include 95% confidence intervals for mean scores to allow the reader to assess how likely these differences would be expected to happen by chance. - Given the low response rate, responder bias is an important issue here and could indicate skepticism about data sharing among non-responders. The potential consequences on the findings should be discussed explicitly in the limitations section. - Greater context about the University of Bristol is warranted if the authors want to imply that these findings are generalizable to other research-intensive institutions, so the reader can form an opinion about the scope of this generalizability. In terms of context, it would also be useful if the authors could discuss the implications of this data for potential policy changes in the institution. Minor points - In the first paragraph, the phrase "Poor replicability of research across disciplines in health and life science" is supported by reference number five (5), which only addresses replicability in social psychology. It would be useful to include references on replicability in other areas as well. - In the second paragraph under survey design, it is written that "mean scores were compared across the two groups", but it is not clear which groups are being talked about (e.g. the groups of responses). - It is not clear from which schools the PGRs and the single undergraduate respondent came, and how they were contacted. Was the survey distributed exclusively via active research staff, or was it sent directly to PGRs and undergraduates as well? - It would also help to state more clearly in the methodology that the survey was conducted in the summer months, as this may have contributed to the low response rate - In the legends of Figure 1 and 2, the full meaning of GDPR should be stated. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Meta-research applied to research reproducibility We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Jan 2026 Rrita Bajraktari, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium We are grateful to Reviewer 4 (and 5 :')) for providing thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and care taken in reviewing this work, and we address the comments below. As the article has already been accepted as Version 2, we respond here and through updates to the extended materials. Data inconsistency (114 vs 115 participants) Thank you for pointing this out. The additional response was an undergraduate response – this has been corrected in the Supplementary Figure S1 Survey instrument We appreciate the suggestion and the full survey instrument is now available in the Extended Data on OSF. Interpretation of social desirability bias We sincerely thank the reviewer for providing an alternative interpretation. In the manuscript, social desirability was presented as a possible hypothesis, not a definitive conclusion. We agree that alternative explanations exist and appreciate this thoughtful interpretation. Given the open peer review format, readers will be able to consider the reviewer’s perspective alongside ours. We agree that responder bias is an important limitation, and this is why it was stated as one in the section ‘Limitations and recommendations for future surveys’. Institutional context and policy implications Thank you for highlighting this! We have now added the relevant University of Bristol policy on Open Data to the Extended Data in OSF. This allows readers to better assess the institutional context, generalisability, and potential implications for future policy development. Minor comments We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. Where appropriate, clarifications have been added in the extended materials. Regarding GDPR, we consider the acronym to be sufficiently well recognised in this context and does not need to be spelled out accordingly to the F1000Research author guidelines. We once again thank Reviewer 4 for their constructive and helpful suggestions. We believe these comments have further improved the transparency and contextualisation of the study. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Amaral OB and Costa GG. Peer Review Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186377.r407252) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v2#referee-response-407252 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vieira Armond A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Sep 2025 | for Version 2 Anna Catharina Vieira Armond , University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vieira Armond A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study aims to investigate the barriers to research data sharing within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at the University of Bristol. The manuscript is clear and well-written, and the question is relevant. However, important clarifications and reporting gaps should be addressed. First, the manuscript would benefit from some clarifications about the survey development and administration: The full survey instrument is not included. I was only able to locate the survey statements by opening the dataset. The complete instrument, including instructions and questions, should be made available in the supplementary material or extended data. Briefly describing this process (or noting that it was not piloted) would be helpful. The timing of the survey is not specified (month and year), and it is not clear whether reminders were sent after the initial invitation. Adding this information would help readers interpret the reported response rates. Results The authors report the response rate for staff, but not for the other groups. Response rates for all groups should be provided. Study participants are not fully characterized. While some demographics are reported in the main text, a more detailed description is needed, including career stage and department. Supplementary Figures 3 and 4 are important to the results and discussion. It would improve the paper if these were presented in the main text rather than as supplementary material. Discussion and limitations Several points are missing or underdeveloped in the discussion. The study was conducted in a single faculty. While the results are useful for developing tailored interventions, the findings are not generalizable given the uneven representation across groups, the limited sample size, and the cultural specificity of data-sharing practices. This should be discussed with caution. The interpretation of the findings would also benefit from more institutional context. Data sharing is influenced by both cultural and institutional factors. Therefore, the authors may also wish to add more details about whether the University of Bristol has mandates or recommendations for data sharing, whether infrastructure, training, and resources are available, and whether local funders have relevant requirements. Finally, the definition of data sharing used in the study is restrictive, excluding controlled-access data, for example. This decision should be discussed, as biomedical researchers often face challenges in balancing de-identification with data usability, and controlled-access repositories are often the only viable model for sensitive health data. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Health sciences with a focus on metaresearch, research integrity, open science practices, and research data management. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Jan 2026 Rrita Bajraktari, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium We would like to thank you for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. We appreciate the time dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for the helpful suggestions, which have enabled us to further improve the transparency of our work. As the manuscript has already been accepted by two reviewers as Version 2, we address these points here and by clarifying the extended materials, rather than submitting a new version. Survey instrument availability Thank you! The full survey instrument, including instructions and all questions, is now available in OSF. Survey timing and reminders We agree that providing timing information helps contextualise the response rate. Month/year of data collection and information regarding reminders have now been added to the extended materials on OSF. Response rate for all groups We appreciate the comment. While the number of active research staff was known and therefore a response rate could be calculated, this information was not available for postgraduate researchers at the time of the survey, and therefore a response rate for this group could not be determined. We have clarified this point in the extended data. Participant characterisation The demographic detail is available in the supplementary figures. Supplementary Figures S1&2 display the department and career stage breakdowns of research staff. Supplementary Figures S3&4 include the total number of responses (staff and PGRs) per department and career stage in the column heading. Generalisability and institutional context We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We have now uploaded the University of Bristol’s Open Data policy at the time of the survey to the Extended Data on OSF. This provides institutional context on OSF that readers may better assess the extent to which findings relate to local institutional conditions. Definition of data sharing We believe that our definition was appropriate in the context of our project. Our aim was to assess current practices within our faculty, with a specific focus on open access data sharing. Importantly, the third part of the survey allowed participants to freely explain why they might not be able to share certain data, which we report in the Results and discuss in the Discussion section. The definition was explicitly provided to participants at the start of the survey. While we acknowledge that alternative definitions are possible, and that our definition may be considered restrictive, we needed to make a clear methodological decision and ensure that all respondents answered based on the same definition. For this reason, we do not consider it appropriate to modify the manuscript retrospectively, as it reflects the study procedures as they were conducted. We again thank Reviewer 3 for their valuable and constructive comments, which we believe further strengthen the clarity and transparency of our study. View more View less Competing Interests NA reply Respond Report a concern Vieira Armond AC. Peer Review Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186377.r407248) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v2#referee-response-407248 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Reichmann S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 23 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Stefan Reichmann , Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Reichmann S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Many thanks to the authors for carefully revising the paper. With the additional information on survey questions, the authors significantly improve the transparency of their methodology and the soundness of their argumentation. In the version that I reviewed, it was relatively unclear (at least to me) what questions had been used in they survey. Now that this has been appropriately addressed and included in the text, I will be happy to recommend the work for indexing. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Reichmann S. Peer Review Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186377.r405743) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v2#referee-response-405743 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Reichmann S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Jun 2025 | for Version 1 Stefan Reichmann , Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Reichmann S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Article: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: A survey at the University of Bristol Reviewer: Dr. Stefan Reichmann Article Synopsis The article investigates the perceived barriers to data sharing in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at the University of Bristol. A survey (n=143) was distributed addressing 3 types of perceived barriers: cultural, logistical, and technical. The survey found the primary obstacles to be time constraints and the complexity of the preparation process, with 34% reporting they “usually” or “always” lack sufficient time to adequately prepare their data for sharing. Additional barriers included not having the rights to share (27%), insufficient technical support (15%), and limited incentives within research teams. Moreover, qualitative responses highlighted a lack of confidence in data sharing infrastructure and guidance. Reviewer Comments This is a carefully executed study with a timely research question. Nevertheless, there are some problems with the work that should be addressed. The part of the work that I take issue with the most is the definition of data sharing given, which seems to me to be unnecessarily restrictive. The authors define data sharing as “the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyze in a format which is openly available”. There are many other ways that data sharing happens, and by choosing such a restricted definition, the study risks missing quite a bit of the practice that may (or may not – this would be an interesting finding in its own right) be happening at FHLS. For instance, FHLS might have invested in data sharing infrastructure (an institutional repository, say), but respondents predominantly choose to share their data via other means or not share them at all – this would be undetectable with this survey. Christine Borgman (and others) have documented data sharing practices extensively, finding large variance across research settings in the ways research data are defined, produced, shared, reused, etc. I believe that defining data sharing as stated above restricts the domain of study too much – the phenomenon of data sharing is simply much broader than the study admits to. As is probably evident, this critique is written from the standpoint of a qualitative researcher who is mindful that the phenomenon of data sharing is richer and much more varied than the definition given. The narrowness of the definition has ramifications for the study design. Since the concept has not been defined vis-à-vis respondents (at least, this is not mentioned in the study), we do not know which definition of data sharing respondents subscribe to (whether a narrow definition, as is given by the authors, or a wide definition as I suggested above). In that sense, the responses given would be very difficult to interpret adequately. The scale used is not fit for the way the questions are phrased, at least in some cases (whenever the Likert scale is interpreted as “Never” to “Every time”): For example, “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated” seems to me to be a yes or no question. Applying the Likert scale in this (and other) cases seems forced, to say the least. In this particular example, a different question formulation (and scale) would have been more appropriate. In particular, the question combines two variables (“I don’t share data” and “Data sharing is complicated”) which make interpretation difficult and risks losing information. Additionally, it creates ambiguity in interpretation, because respondents could be assenting to either one of the two statements in their response. Because the question combines them, it becomes impossible to interpret meaningfully. A better way to approach this would have been to ask, in a separate question, whether respondents share their data, how often, with whom, and by what means, and then to ask about barriers. The gulf between the way the questions are phrased and the response options offered becomes even more apparent when considering the second framing of the questions (“they” instead of “I”). There, it seems that very few respondents chose the option “Every time” for all of the survey items. I suspect that this is due to the way the questions are phrased and does not necessarily reflect how respondents view their colleagues. At the very least, a considerable number of statements would have to be assessed based on an “Completely agree-Completely disagree”-Likert Scale. Also, many of the questions logically imply an “I don’t know”-option. That respondents did not have the option to skip questions either (a limitation the authors acknowledge), in my view, hampers the results further. This could have been solved relatively easily by including an “I don’t know/Cannot answer” option. In general, while a survey should be constructed so as to yield generalizable, quantifiable results, the questions should still be as close as possible to our normal way of speaking, i.e. even if responses are collected on a five-(four, three)-point-scale, the questions should be as close as possible to the way respondents normally speak about the issues in question. Consequently, either the statements or the response options need to be rephrased (where in fact, I would opt for the latter in most cases). In addition, I would need to see the questions that respondents were actually asked – at present, the article merely presents the statements that respondents rated but I suspect that there would have been some kind of prompt. Further, I am having trouble understanding the rationale of the two question framings. While I do think that reducing social desirability bias is laudable, I am hesitant to concur with the way this has been achieved because the resulting survey questions are difficult to interpret at face value – “they” is highly ambiguous, and the quality of a response changes considerably depending on how a respondent interprets “they” (colleagues can be people in the same department, field, even university – we don’t really know what group this is referring to). For instance, “They have difficulty sharing very large datasets” could be taken to refer to colleagues in the same field, which suggests a lack of skills, or it could be referring to colleagues in other disciplines, for which an explanation seems a little more complicated. In addition, some of the statements make considerably less sense when substituting “I” for “They”, for instance “Their team doesn’t do it” seems to me to be very difficult to interpret – whose team? In terms of the findings, I would expect them to mirror those found in the literature since the survey items have been developed based on landmark studies, but I would caution against interpreting these findings as simply confirming previous work; rather, because of the survey design, I would argue that the work reproduces the assumptions built into the work that the present article builds upon. In order to be of some help, I would like to end with some suggestions for how to improve the paper: The simplest (but probably most time-consuming) would be to follow-up with respondents across the disciplines represented in the sample and ask them for an interview. This would give respondents space to clarify how they interpret the core ideas used in the survey (such as “data sharing”, “reproducibility”, etc.), and to clarify whom they regard as in- resp. outgroup. Other than that, I think the most sensible course would be to revise the questions as indicated (I would be happy to offer my help there). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sociology of Science, Science and Technology Studies, Open Science, Information Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2025 Nicholas Beazley-Long, University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences, Bristol, UK We thank the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We have made several changes and additions to the article for clarity. We believe we have addressed all the reviewers concerns below. Addressing the concern about the definition of data sharing used in this study. Our aim was to investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and underlying reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underpinning research manuscripts, at the point of acceptance for publication across Health and Life Sciences at Bristol. To this end, we defined data sharing at the point of manuscript acceptance as: the practice of making research data as open as possible online, allowing other researchers and the public to freely access, reuse, and analyse the data in a format which is openly available. We have adjusted the text in the introduction to clarify this definition. To clarify that respondents were instructed to consider barriers to sharing data underlying manuscripts’ findings at the point of publication acceptance we have revised the title accordingly. We specifically chose this time point in the research lifecycle because at this point the data underlying manuscript findings are - in the vast majority - finalised and this time represents a critical decision-making moment when researchers are often required to consider data availability for publication. In addition, journal and funder policies around data sharing typically come into effect at this time. Focusing on this stage allows us to assess perceived and experienced barriers at the point when research data sharing is most actionable and policy-relevant. We have revised the article to include the text that instructed respondents how to rate the statements in part 1 and part 2. See below. These instructions help to define the ‘what’ (data underlying the manuscript) and the ‘when’ (at point of acceptance) for the respondents to consider. We did not want to state the exact types of data to consider (i.e raw, processed, summary, primary/secondary, methodological, unstructured etc) as this could have been restrictive. The instructing text in the survey. Part 1. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Part 2. “On a scale from Never to Every time, can you rate on how often each statement below applies to others around you when thinking about sharing the research data underlying your manuscript following its acceptance for publication:” Clarification of the Framing in Part 2 ("They" Framing) The reviewer raised a concern that participants may not know what their colleagues do or don’t do in respect to sharing research data. However, the survey did not ask about colleagues specifically. The actual question posed was: “How often each statement below applies to others around you...?” This wording was intentionally chosen to capture participants’ perceptions of the data sharing practices and barriers surrounding them — not objective knowledge of others’ behaviours. This framing has been shown to reduce potential social desirability bias. Clarification of the Question Format Reviewer 2 also questioned the framing of some items, such as “I don’t share data because it’s too complicated,” suggesting these are yes/no questions. However, the survey asked participants to indicate how often each statement applied, not whether it applied or not. This frequency-based approach was deliberate: researchers may encounter certain barriers (e.g., complexity, time constraints) in some projects but not others. A binary yes/no format would have been overly restrictive and failed to capture this variability. By asking about frequency, we aimed to better understand the prevalence of different barriers across contexts. Reproduction of assumptions argument The reviewer makes the argument that our survey design reproduces assumptions built into the study on which this article builds. However, our intention was to assess the prevalence of barriers and underlying reasons for data sharing challenges in Health and Life Sciences research. To this end, we developed 21 statements based on existing literature, complemented by free-text boxes to allow respondents to share additional thoughts, including barriers not captured by the predefined items. This approach builds on established knowledge in the field, which we believe is essential rather than limiting and it would have been remiss of us to ignore. We acknowledge, that if our primary aim had been to uncover entirely new or undocumented barriers, a different methodological approach would have been needed. However, our focus was on identifying the most prevalent barriers in order to inform practical strategies for addressing them. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Reichmann S. Peer Review Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r386103) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1#referee-response-386103 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Boté-Vericad J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Jun 2025 | for Version 1 Juan-José Boté-Vericad , Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2025 Boté-Vericad J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article is well-organized and clearly communicates its objective. Current literature is cited across the introduction and methods sections. Some introductory sentences are slightly redundant or overly long. Introduction needs only minor stylistic refinements for clarity. Survey design is rigorous and includes ethical approval documentation. Dual framing (I/They) is a thoughtful method reducing bias.Thematic analysis methodology is clear, collaborative, and appropriately validated. Framing encourages reflection and distinguishes self versus group perceptions. Survey questions are described clearly and linked to past research. All source materials, survey documents, and code are openly available. Analysis steps are explained and data structure is well described. Qualitative coding steps include inter-rater review and consensus process. Raw data is shared via the University of Bristol repository. Files include survey results, R code, and metadata readme. Repository uses Creative Commons license ensuring open data access. Documentation enables re-use and verification by external researchers. No file or description appears to be missing or unclear. This article is suitable for publication after minor edits. Language in introduction and discussion could be slightly condensed. Consider clarifying broad terms like “too complicated” in future work. The study is robust, timely, and methodologically well executed. It contributes valuable evidence for improving data sharing culture. I recommend acceptance with very minor stylistic improvements. This is a useful model for open research infrastructure surveys. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Open Science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Boté-Vericad JJ. Peer Review Report For: The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :482 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177903.r384382) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1#referee-response-384382 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "The perceived barriers to data sharing in...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Bajraktari R et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482", templates : { twitter : "The perceived barriers to data sharing in health and life sciences:.... Bajraktari R et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-482/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/161819/177903") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "177903"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "384389": 0, "384388": 0, "407236": 0, "384390": 0, "384385": 0, "411330": 0, "384384": 0, "384387": 0, "411328": 0, "384386": 0, "411329": 0, "407247": 0, "407252": 13, "407253": 0, "407250": 0, "407251": 0, "407248": 17, "407249": 0, "405743": 11, "386101": 0, "386103": 36, "386102": 0, "405744": 0, "386109": 0, "384381": 0, "411326": 0, "386108": 0, "411327": 0, "384383": 0, "411324": 0, "386110": 0, "384382": 25, "411325": 0, "386105": 0, "411322": 0, "386104": 0, "411323": 0, "386107": 0, "386106": 0, "411321": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "d183c26f-0c2b-4ef9-8d88-2dc8c1b38a0c"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });