science

You are currently browsing the archive for the science category.

The following data and information were collected and analyzed by Tracey P. Lauriault, and Sam Shields a recent Carleton University Critical Data Studies graduate.

We set out to answer a very simple question inspired by a Twitter stream calling for COVID-19 reporting to include Indigenous, Black and Racialized characteristics. The following guided our activities:

  • What kind of demographic data are reported in official COVID19 reports?

On Thursday April 16, 2020 we spent the day searching the content of official government COVID-19 reporting sites. We compiled our data into a Google Spreadsheet, conferred over Skype, chatted in FB, and verified each other’s work. Official COVID-19 reporting dynamically changes as the pandemic evolves, and as institutions collect more data and build the capacity to report, they report more and they do so in a better way. I also consult experts in my network who comment and suggest resources. We will take another look next week to see if anything has changed. The following were our data sources

  1. British Columbia: COVID Dashboard & BCCCD PHSA Surveillance Report (15/04/2020)
  2. Yukon: Information about COVID-19
  3. Alberta: COVID-19 in Alberta
  4. North West Territories: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
  5. Saskatchewan: Cases and Risk of COVID-19 in Saskatchewan
  6. Manitoba: COVID-19 Updates
  7. Nunavut: COVID-19 (Novel Coronavirus)
  8. Ontario: The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Status of cases in Ontario & Daily Epidemiologic Summary (15/04/2020)
  9. Québec: Données COVID-19 au Québec & Situation du coronavirus (COVID-19) au Québec
  10. New Brunswick: COVID-19 Testing by the Numbers
  11. Prince Edward Island: PEI COVID-19 Testing Data
  12. Nova Scotia: Novel coronaviris (COVID-19) cases in Nova Scotia: data visualization
  13. Newfoundland: Newfoundland and Labrador Pandemic Update Data Hub
  14. Federal: PHAC Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Outbreak update & Full Daily Epidemiology Update (April 16, 2020)

We found an incredible amount of information and overall, each province, territory and the Federal government make their data readily available and these are disseminated in charts, tables, maps, and dynamic dashboards and in daily surveillance reports. The data and indicators are explained, and data sources are generally provided.

In terms official COVID-19 reporting, there was very little reporting cases and outcomes with demographic variables and when there was, it is not standardized, making it difficult to do any national comparative analysis.  Below is what we found.

1. Age

  • COVID-19 Cases by Age were reported by all provinces and the Federal Government. Age was not reported by all 3 Territories.
  • Those who did report, provided case counts and some percentages.
  • Only British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec reported Deaths by age groups.
  • Quebec reports age in 4 different ways.
  • There are no Age Range Reporting standards, and this impedes comparability.

The following is how COVID-19 Age data are reported, we ordered the results by similar reporting styles.

  • British Columbia: <10, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+, Unknown
  • New Brunswick: <10, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-80, 90+
  • Manitoba: 0-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90-99, 100+
  • Quebec: 0-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+, Unknown
  •                 0-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+
  •                 30-49, 50-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90+
  •                 <30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90, Unknown
  • Alberta: <1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39 ,40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80+
  • Saskatchewan: <19, 20-44, 45-65, 65+
  • Ontario: <19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80+
  • Federal: 19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80+
  • Nova Scotia: 0-19, 20-44, 45-64, 65+
  • PEI: <20, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, 80+
  • Newfoundland: <20, 20-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+
  • Yukon:  No Reporting by Age
  • North West Territories: No Reporting By Age
  • Nunavut: No Reporting By Age

Age range variable reporting recommendations:

a) Standardize age ranges reporting systems across jurisdictions to enable comparison.

b) Social-determinant of health variables, such as occupation, income, the type of dwelling a person lives in, where one lives, are variables being reported as being related to COVID-19. The Census reports age by quintile although it start at 0-14, in Canada vital statistics are reported by age quintile and the World Health Organization (WHO) also reports by quintile. Linking to other aggregated demographic, health and vital statistical data can inform the planning, and the managing of health outcomes.

2. Sex

  •  Sex is Not reported as a COVID-19 attribute, by 4 Canadian jurisdictions, namely the Territories and  Newfoundland and Labrador.
  • For jurisdictions that do report COVID-19 data by sex, only binary classifications are used, Female and Male.
  • Only British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba report Sex and Age as attributes.
  • Only Quebec and The Federal Government report Sex and Death.

Sex Variable Reporting Recommendations:

a) It is advisable to report COVID-19 indicators by sex such as Female, Male and Gender Diverse.

b) Sex disaggregated data are important in terms of informing testing; health interventions and it is associated with health outcomes. Knowing can inform planning.

c) Reporting age and sex is important as these are distinguishing characteristics in vital statistics, health, wellbeing, for longevity and death rates.  Also, reports suggest that the virus affects men more negatively than it does women, especially older men. In terms of the labour force and COVID-19, nurses, doctors, elder care and home care professionals, those who work with people who live in group homes for the disabled and provide home care for these people, and people who clean these places tend to be women. Higher numbers of women are becoming afflicted by COVID-19 in Canada and this may be associated with their occupations. Age and sex are standard labour force statistical variables and reporting these attributes with COVID-19 will inform if health outcomes are related to those attributes.

3. Labour Classification

  • In official COVID-19 reporting, only the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Quebec reported any labour category and respectively they reported Case Counts for Health Care Workers for Saskatchewan and Cases Count and Death Count of Staff in hospitals and long-term care homes for Quebec.

Labour Force Reporting Recommendations:

a) Canadian Labour Forces Characteristics such as employed full or part-time, and the North American Industry Classification System and National Occupation Classification (NOC) system are standardized. For example, see the NAICS Health Care and Social Services or the classification and search for cleaner in NOCS.

b) The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) health workforce database includes standardized job classifications and data tables by job classification. They also have methodological guides comparing provincial systems. Harmonizing classifications across the provinces and the territories would go a long way to facilitating comparable analysis.

4. Indigenous, Black and Racialized People

  • No official government COVID-19 sites report data by any of these groups.
  • Race and ethnicity may or may not biologically predispose people to COVID-19 health outcomes.  We are assuming that these data are being tracked but are not reported as there is a concern about how to report these data.
  • Indigenous, Black and Racialized people may also have preexisting health conditions that are socially and economically determined, and these preexisting conditions may disproportionally affect this group more than others. Furthermore, reports suggest that Indigenous, Black and Racialized People have been infected more than others, and their health outcomes are more dire. Evidence informed decisions can lead to better outcomes for some groups, reporting the numbers can advance better and more targeted practices in community, hospital and in our cities.

Recommendation on the Reporting with Indigenous, Black and Racialized People categories:

a) The Province of Ontario Anti-Racism Directorate publishes a Data Standards for the Identification and Monitoring of Systemic Racism that includes

“guidance for race-based data collection for government and other public sector organizations, including steps to follow for data collection, management and use”.

Table 1. Valid Values for Race Categories on P.26 provides a useful classification system.  The Standard also includes protocols for the collection of self reported or observed data.

b) First Nation, Metis and Inuit in Canada may be collecting these data in their communities.  I will consult to see if that is the case and report back.

Final Remarks:

Health outcomes are intersectional, and age, sex, workforce and equity data provided additional insight about who is being affected, and knowing who and where can inform decisions about determinants of health, testing, improvement of health outcomes and planning. We have provided some insight in this post, about what is being reported and provided some recommendations. We will provide updates as more information is collected. We hope you find this useful and we welcome your comments and suggestions by email: tracey.lauriault@carleton.ca or on Twitter @TraceyLauriault.

 

Data are the oxygen of science

Watching this is a great New Years morning activity, and for Sep Kamvar I fell that data and statistics are the new black!  This is worth the 1 hour of your time!  dam, most online TV shows are 42 minutes and you learn way less…I should know :(

Merci Karl!

It looks like a biased toward industry monitoring agency Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) has left the public in the dark about fish abnormalities in waters in and around the oil sands sites.  It is also a case where the monitoring agency is aggregating the data into annual reports and not providing the raw data for others to scrutinize.

“That is the problem. To get the actual data, you need the raw data,” not just annual reports, said Kevin Timoney, an Alberta ecologist and oil sands researcher. “They release just enough so they can say that they did, but they don’t give you enough to see what’s really going on.”

Pembina Institute: “An essential component of any credible monitoring program is that all the data should be available to the public,

Hundreds of deformed fish found in rivers running through the Alberta oil sands have been collected and documented by an industry-led monitoring body, The Globe and Mail has learned, but the findings were not shared with the public or key decision makers in government.

That body, the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP), has been criticized in scientific quarters as secretive and is under the scrutiny of three reviews. Former environment minister Jim Prentice ordered one of those reviews after being shown photos this fall of a few malformed fish, and it was delivered Thursday to Environment Canada.

The Monitoring agencie’s Steering Committee is mixed between Oil industry, public health agencies, First Nations and government with very heavy emphasis on big oil industry:

Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (formerly Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Health Canada
Alberta Environment Husky Energy
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Imperial Oil Resources
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. MEG Energy Corp.
ConocoPhillips Canada Nexen  Inc.
Devon Canada Corporation Northern Lights Health Region
Environment Canada Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
Fort McMurray First Nation Shell Albian Sands
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Suncor Energy Inc.
Fort McKay First Nation Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Hammerstone Corporation Total E&P Canada Ltd.

I tried to find out who the members of the technical committee are but only found the following org chart which illustrates that the 3 non government stakeholders are First Nations or Metis Groups and these are dwarfed between industry and government. On the Government side you also see an Energy and Utilities Board, while on the industry side, by the largest number representatives,  is the petroleum & energy industry:
The following are the labs RAMP states it subs it’s work to.  I do not know enough the science to assess them.  I do wonder if they would have the raw data in their shops and if they would release these to the public.  A lab that is sub-contracted may or may not be the owners of the data and may or may not have given up the rights to publish them.  This is often the issue with the procurement of data, for instance, survey engineers claim IP on their data and share them with a city only for city assessments, but the city has to send citizens back to the survey engineer to view those data and the city cannot share these with citizens openly.  In this case, it would be more trustworthy to acquire the raw data from the labs directly.  However, it also depends who owns these labs.  They could very well be owned by the industries that need tests done, or they could be biased toward those industries as they would be their major source of revenue.

  • ALS Environmental – most water and sediment quality analyses
  • Alberta Research Council – some ultratrace metal analyses
  • AXYS Laboratories – sediment concentrations of PAHs
  • HydroQual – water and sediment toxicity analyses
  • Flett Research – mercury analysis in non-lethal fish tissue samples
  • Jack Zloty – benthic invertebrate taxonomy

RAMP shares its information only in annual monitoring reports.  There is an interactive web map of their monitoring sites.  The legend indicates fish tissue monitoring site, and I only found 2 fish tissue sampling sites that do not provide much data except that a sample was taken. According the the G&M article:

Much of the raw data collected by RAMP is kept private, deemed proprietary because of the industry funding. But even among its members, it has faced pressure to open up. Syncrude, which did much of the testing before RAMP’s inception, has called for data to be released, spokeswoman Cheryl Robb said.

In RAMP’s news section there is reference to an article indicating that they would make their database available to the public.  I could not find this database on their site and have sent them an email requesting to see it.  The email I recceived regarding this request is as follows:

Good morning Tracey,

Thank you for your e-mail.

As indicated by the media post you pointed out, the database will be available to the public by the end of the year and that is still our intention. Please check back next week.

Best regards,
Hailey
RAMP Communications

This is a classic lack of transparency situation and a seeming stacked deck leaning heavily toward meeting industry interests. It is very reminiscent of the Environment Canada refusal to share Mine Pollutant Data, a government agency supposedly overseeing the public interest not sharing key data.

Open Data – Vote & Submit

Access to public data is one of the most popular VOTE topics in the submissions on the Digital Economy Consultation site. Here are the VOTING submissions that ask for open data, open access and open government.

1. Open Access to Canada’s Public Sector Information and Data is looking for some votes.

2. Improved access to publicly-funded data associated with research data Require open access to results of research funded by the Canadian taxpayer

3. Open Access to Canadian research

4. National Archives Content Online

5. Créer une licence « Creative Commons » du Canada

6. Protect and enhance digital freedoms for education

There has also been some writing about the consultation:

Michael Geist: Opening Up Canada’s Digital Economy Strategy

David Eaves: Canada’s Digital Economy Strategy: Two quick actions you can take

Take a few minutes to login and vote! If you can, provide a comment about how access to data has improved or will improve your work.

Please vote – Open Access to Canada’s Public Sector Information and Data. This is part of the Industry Canada Digital Economy Consultation.

Please take some time to vote and distribute within your networks and institutions! It just takes a few seconds.

We are at a tipping point on this issue in Canada and your few seconds of your time could open up our data resources. You will also see a complimentary Research Data and improved access to publicly-funded data submissions that could also use some votes while you are at it!

Below is the text. If you have ideas that can be added for a formal submission, I would be really glad to hear from you!

Create a data.gc.ca for Canada’s public sector information (PSI) and data in parallel with the excellent NRCan GeoConnections model (e.g. GeoGratis, GeoBase, Discovery Portal).

These PSI & data should be shared at no cost with citizens, be in accessible and open formats, searchable with standard metadata, wrapped in public domain or unrestricted user licenses, delivered within an an open architecture infrastructure based on open standards, specifications and be interoperable. It should be governed with open government principles whereby data & PSI are shared first and arguments to restrict are made only for legitimate privacy and security reasons which should also be disclosed. It should have a permanent home and include both the right combination of multi-departmental (e.g. CIC, INAC, HRSDC, NRC, NRCan, etc.) inputs, trans-disciplinary human resources (e.g. Librarians, archivists, scientists) along with IT specialists & engineers. It should be built in consultation with Canadians to ensure it is designed with user needs and useability in mind. (This is how the GeoConnections program built the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure).

The Government of Canada produces administrative data for the purpose of program delivery (e.g. Canada Student Loan, location where new Canadians land, the number and location of homeless shelters, etc.), and it produces data for the purpose of governing for example: the data collected by Statistics Canada (e.g. Census & Surveys, National Accounts); Environment Canada (e.g. air & water quality, location of brown sites); Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (e.g. satellite and radar imagery); Industry Canada (e.g. corporate registry); Canada Revenue Agency (e.g. Charities dbase); National Research Council (e.g. Scientific data); SSHRC (e.g., social science research data) and more. These data have already been paid for by Canadians via taxation, and the cost of selling these data back to citizens on a cost recovery basis is marginal or more expensive (e.g. Cost of government to government procurement, management of licences, royalties, government accounting and etc.) relative to the benefits & reduced overhead of delivering these data at no cost. Furthermore, Canadians often pay multiple times for the same data, since each level of government also purchases the same data, federal departments purchase these data from each other and there are examples where municipalities purchase the same data multiple times from Statistics Canada. This is not only a waste of taxpayer money it goes against the principle of create once and use many times and of avoiding the duplication of effort.

Data & PSI are non rivalrous goods where sharing and open access to these does not impede other from doing so. Open access stimulates research and IT sectors who will have the resources they need for the creation of new data R&D products (e.g. Applications) and services (e.g., web mapping), evidence based decision making (e.g. Population health), and informing public policy on a number of key Canadian issues (e.g. Homelessness, housing, education). In addition, evidence from Canadian City Open Data Initiatives (e.g., Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, and Ottawa) have demonstrated that the cost and time to find and access data & PSI within government have been greatly reduced since finding these are easier and negotiating access becomes a non issue, which in turn brings savings to citizens and greater efficiencies within these institutions. Finally, participatory and deliberative democracies include the active engagement and inputs from citizens, civil society organizations, the private sector, and NGOs along with their government. Making these data available increases the collective knowledge base of Canadians and stimulates public engagement, improves efficiencies, and fuels innovation.

These are already our (citizen’s) data & PSI, why not share share them with us and enable citizens and the government to work together to stimulate Canada’s economy, create innovative industries and formulate evidence based public policy.

Open Dinosaur Project

This, I love:

The Open Dinosaur Project was founded to involve scientists and the public alike in developing a comprehensive database of dinosaur limb bone measurements, to investigate questions of dinosaur function and evolution. We have three major goals:1) do good science; 2) do this science in the most open way possible; and 3) allow anyone who is interested to participate. And by anyone, we mean anyone! We do not care about your education, geographic location, age, or previous background with paleontology. The only requirement for joining us is that you share the goals of our project and are willing to help out in the efforts.

Want to sign up? Email project head Andy Farke (andrew.farke@gmail.com), and welcome aboard!

[via datalibre]

It is quite surprising that this was not the norm, to manage the public good!

the Federal Court of Canada released late yesterday that it will force the federal government to stop withholding data on one of Canada’s largest sources of pollution – millions of tonnes of toxic mine tailings and waste rock from mining operations throughout the country.

The Federal Court sided with the groups and issued an Order demanding that the federal government immediately begin publicly reporting mining pollution data from 2006 onward to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). The strongly worded decision describes the government’s pace as “glacial” and chastises the government for turning a “blind eye” to the issue and dragging its feet for “more than 16 years”.

I look forward to reading the court order. According to Ecojustice (Formerly the Sierra Legal Defence Fund) the ruling includes the following strong wording:

* It calls the federal government’s pace “glacial”[paragraph 145];
* It says the government’s approach has been simply to turn a “blind eye”[207];
* It notes that the frustration felt by advocates trying to uncover this information “after more than 16 years of consultation” is “perfectly understandable” [124];
* It states that not reporting “denies the Canadian public its rights to know how it is threatened by a major source of pollution”[127];
* It highlights that the minister has chosen not to publish the pollution data “in deference to” the mining industry[220];
* It used unusually simple language even I understand when it said that the government was simply “wrong”[177].

The advocates were: Justin Duncan and Marlene Cashin and their dedicated clients at Great Lakes United and Mining Watch Canada who launched the case in 2007.

It is uncertain how these data will be released. Currently, these types of pollutant data are released on the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) which is:

The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is Canada’s legislated, publicly accessible inventory of pollutant releases (to air, water and land), disposals and transfers for recycling. (Mining Watch)

The NPRI is fairly usable & accessible, includes georeferencing and some mapping services. I tried to use their library and it was however not working!

The Mining Association of Canada wants to read the ruling “carefully” to assess how Environment Canada should release these data. I find this confusing, since I thought the Government got to decide how these data are to be released and what is to be included, and that decision was based on ensuring the public good and the public right to know. The fight is not yet quite over. It will be important to ensure the data are not watered down for public consumption.

It is another wonderful example of creating an infrastructure – NPRI + law – to distribute public data. This also teaches us something about gouvernementalité, and who the government thinks with, in this case the mineral and mining industry and not citizens. Citizens should not have to lobby for 16 years and expend incredible resources to get the courts to get the government to ensure the public good!

Articles:

  • Court orders pollution data from mining made public, By Juliet O’Neill, Canwest News ServiceApril 24, 2009
  • Environment Canada forced to reveal full extent of pollution from mines
    Court ruling considered major victory for green organizations
    , MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT, Saturday’s Globe and Mail, April 24, 2009
  • Great Lakes United Press Release, Court victory forces Canada to report pollution data for mines, April 24, 2009 – 11:16am — Brent Gibson
  • Mining Watch Press Release: Court Victory Forces Canada to Report Pollution Data for Mines, Friday April 24, 2009 11:31 AM

    [via Boing Boing]

    Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI) is

    Canada’s national science library and leading scientific publisher, provides Canada’s research and innovation community with tools and services for accelerated discovery, innovation and commercialization.

    CISTI delvers science data and information to Canadians online, in the Depository Service and as paper delivery service to researchers in Universities.  But its days of doing that are numbered…

    CISTI has just suffered very serious budget cuts – 70% cut – that affects scientific innovation, access to scientific data, the dissemination of Canadian Science and open access publishing.

    The Government of Canada and the National Research Council of Canada have decided that the journals and services of NRC Research Press will be transferred to the private sector.

    Privatization? In a sense they are a victim of their own success.  The NRC frames it as follows in a letter to their clients (e.g. Depository Service Program):

    this transformation is not the development of a “new business” but the movement of a successful program into a new legal and business environment. It is our belief that this new environment will afford us more flexibility to manage our publishing activities.

    More flexibility to reduce services to Canadians more like it since the Depository Services Program (DSP) and the delivery of online access to journals to Canadians cannot be funded by an entity outside of the Federal government, and it is expected that the termination date to journals delivered in this way will be sometime in 2010.

    This means less access to scientific journals to Canadians. Research Canadians have paid for!  CISTI journals deposited in the DSP were important, since the DSP’s:

    primary objective is to ensure that Canadians have ready and equal access to federal government information. The DSP achieves this objective by supplying these materials to a network of more than 790 libraries in Canada and to another 147 institutions around the world holding collections of Canadian government publications.

    In addition, hundreds of government jobs – scientists, librarians and researchers are expected to be lost.  The budget cut is $35 million in annual expenditures.

    This plan includes a reduction in NRC’s a-base funding totalling $16.8 million per year by 2011-2012 (announced in Budget 2009) as well as reductions in revenue-generating activities.

    Hmm! Wonder what our current Federal Minister of State for Science and Technology’s thoughts are about science?

    Here are a couple of articles:

    Actions:

    Here are a few articles:

  • NRC cuts could affect 300 positions, The Ottawa Citizen
  • Access to CISTI Source to End
  • Action:

    This paper includes an awesome table (p.003) which outlines attributes related to research data sharing in academic health centres.  The table includes determinants of data access from the perspective of data storage, controls on access to data, and who determines access permissions.

    The paper also includes 7 recommendations for Academic Health Centres (AHC) to encourage data sharing which I think can be modified to suit other contexts:

    1. Commit to sharing data as openly as possible, given privacy constraints.  Streamline institutional review boards, technology transfer, and information technology policies and procedures accordingly.
    2. Recognize data sharing contributions in hiring and promotion decisions, perhaps as a bonus to a publication’s impact factor.  Use concrete metrics when available. [I like that they understand the incentive structures of this group]
    3. Educate trainees and current investigators on responsible data sharing and reuse practices through class work, mentorship, and professional development.  Promote a framework for deciding upon appropriate data sharing mechanisms.
    4. Encourage data sharing practices as part of publication policies.  Lobby for explicit and enforceable policies in journal and conference instructions, to both authors and peer reviewers.
    5. Encourage data sharing plans as part of funding policies.  Lobby for appropriate data sharing requirements by funders, and recommend that they assess a proposal’s data sharing plans as part of its scientific contributions.
    6. Fund the cost of data sharing, support for repositories, adoption of sharing infrastructure and metrics, and research into best practices through federal grants and AHC funds.
    7. Publish experiences in data sharing to facilitate the exchange of best practices.

    I have not looked at this literature in a while, but my sense is the discourse is moving away from problems to providing solutions.  Most importantly in the case of this paper, they are culture shifting since, in a sense they a pushing toward an open access ideology by creating an environment conducive to sharing by hiring the right people, providing the appropriate incentives, marketing successes, changing publication practices, educating and promoting open access within.  This is most interesting as this is the medical profession, a bastion of commerce and privacy concerns that is moving to open access faster than our Statistical Agency in Canada!

    The full paper is available for free in myriad formats!

    Piwowar HA, Becich MJ, Bilofsky H, Crowley RS, on behalf of the caBIG Data Sharing and Intellectual Capital Workspace (2008), Towards a Data Sharing Culture: Recommendations for Leadership from Academic Health Centers. PLoS Med 5(9): e183

    The publisher, PLoS Medicine:

    PLoS Medicine believes that medical research is an international public resource. The journal provides an open-access venue for important, peer-reviewed advances in all disciplines. With the ultimate aim of improving human health, we encourage research and comment that address the global burden of disease.

    PLoS Medicine (eISSN 1549-1676; ISSN-1549-1277) is an open-access, peer-reviewed medical journal published monthly online by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), a nonprofit organization. The inaugural issue was published on 19 October 2004.

    « Older entries