Dr. Ann Van de Winckel, studies physical therapy and rehabilitative medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical school, and serves as Director of the Brain Body Mind Lab there. In November 2023, she published a dataset, “Finding functionality: Rasch analysis of the Functionality Appreciation Scale in community-dwelling adults in the US” on Dryad, with a related research article appearing in Frontiers in Rehabilitation Science.

At the time, the decision to publish with Dryad came as a surprise. Dr. Van de Winckel originally planned to share data with the University of Minnesota’s DRUM repository. But, due to restrictions on patient data, she was unable to do so.

When researching alternatives she saw Dryad listed among the repositories recommended by the National Institutes of Health as a preferred option for the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Because the University of Minnesota is a Dryad partner, publication was fully covered, making Dryad an easy choice.

The value of curation

Dr. Van de Winckel said she was extremely pleased with Dryad’s curation process.

Dryad data curators thoroughly evaluate submitted datasets, checking the metadata, links, data, and README files to ensure that everything is in place and meets ethical standards and FAIR principles for publication. If any changes are required, the curator reaches out to authors directly with personal help and advice. 

Dr. Van de Winckel emphasized the thorough review her data submission received, and the clear, detailed guidance on what needed to be revised and how to revise it. She noted that curation support was especially valuable for first-timers, since, as she put it, “you don’t know what you don’t know.”

The very first time Dr. Van de Winckel submitted data, she was not familiar with the required README file. Because of that, there were certain elements she had not planned for in advance. Dr. Van de Winckel worked to ensure the README for her dataset was clear and easy to understand for anyone not directly involved in the data collection or with study participants.

Dr. Van de Winckel also noted that, as a first-time submitter, entering the metadata and uploading the data files required more time than expected, and additional effort was needed to ensure the data package was accurate and complete.

The team was consistently responsive and easy to communicate with, she added.

Tips & Trips

Dr. Van de Winckel’s tips for sharing data effectively, especially in human research:

1. Provide enough context for reuse. Include sufficient detail so others can actually understand and use the data—not just view it.

2. Provide detailed documentation and guidance for interpretation. For example, give the scoring range of scales and indicate whether higher scores mean better or worse outcomes.

3. Think beyond your own expertise. Prepare the dataset so that researchers who are not in your specific field can still understand and build on your work.

Overall, make data as transparent, interpretable, and user-friendly as possible to maximize its value for others.

Evolving practices

Data sharing has changed significantly over the past decade, Dr. Van de Winckel noted — largely due to mandates. Increased transparency has strengthened the rigor of research by allowing others to evaluate, reproduce, and validate findings. 

The ability to replicate and validate findings is important for all research fields, she said. The availability of data repositories now ensures that methods and results are more thoroughly documented than they were 20 years ago, enhancing accountability and reproducibility.