Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Research data management for bioimaging: the 2021 NFDI4BIOIMAGE community survey version 2; peer review: 2 approved
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Research data management for bioimaging: the 2021 NFDI4BIOIMAGE community survey version 2; peer review: 2 approved
Do you wish to request the book?
Research data management for bioimaging: the 2021 NFDI4BIOIMAGE community survey version 2; peer review: 2 approved
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Research data management for bioimaging: the 2021 NFDI4BIOIMAGE community survey version 2; peer review: 2 approved
2022
Overview
Background
Knowing the needs of the bioimaging community with respect to research data management (RDM) is essential for identifying measures that enable the adoption of the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles for microscopy and bioimage analysis data across disciplines. As an initiative within Germany's National Research Data Infrastructure, we conducted this community survey in the summer of 2021 to assess the state of the art of bioimaging RDM and the community needs.
Methods
An online survey was conducted with a mixed question-type design. We created a questionnaire tailored to relevant topics of the bioimaging community, including specific questions on bioimaging methods and bioimage analysis, as well as more general questions on RDM principles and tools. 203 survey entries were included in the analysis covering the perspectives from various life and biomedical science disciplines and from participants at different career levels.
Results
The results highlight the importance and value of bioimaging RDM and data sharing. However, the practical implementation of FAIR practices is impeded by technical hurdles, lack of knowledge, and insecurity about the legal aspects of data sharing. The survey participants request metadata guidelines and annotation tools and endorse the usage of image data management platforms. At present, OMERO (Open Microscopy Environment Remote Objects) is the best known and most widely used platform. Most respondents rely on image processing and analysis, which they regard as the most time-consuming step of the bioimage data workflow. While knowledge about and implementation of electronic lab notebooks and data management plans is limited, respondents acknowledge their potential value for data handling and publication.
Conclusions
The bioimaging community acknowledges and endorses the value of RDM and data sharing. Still, there is a need for information, guidance, and standardization to foster the adoption of FAIR data handling. This survey may help inspiring targeted measures to close this gap.
