Barbour has been the chief editor of PLoS Medicine – a journal of the Public Library of Science – since 2008. She came to PLoS in 2004 from a career in publishing at The Lancet. She had worked at that publication for about five years before she joined PLoS.

Her background includes study in Natural Sciences at Cambridge University. Subsequently, she studied medicine at University College London and Middlesex Hospital School of Medicine in London. Following training in Hematology at the Royal Free Hospital, London, she went on to study at Oxford. Later, she trained at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Barbour has served on several committees, including the Council of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Ethics Committee for the World Association of Medical Editors. In addition, she has taken part in talks concerning revisions to CONSORT statements and the QUOROM statement. She also participated in the first meetings of the EQUATOR initiative.

Have you had specific experiences with data sharing, and if so, when did you begin your data sharing effort?

As a journal editor I have implemented policies, developed mechanisms to facilitate data sharing by authors and mediated disputes when authors have been unwilling to share data with readers after publication.

What problems/hurdles have you encountered personally or what  problems/hurdles have you observed generally in the scientific realm?

There are two primary issues that cause problems: First, unwillingness to share data for academic (including concerns over privacy) or (rarely) commercial reasons; second, lack of easy mechanisms for sharing of data – e.g. lack of suitable repositories.

How did you tackle those hurdles?

We have supported repositories where they existed for microarrays (arrayed series of thousands of microscopic spots of DNA oligonucleotides) and have indicated we will support other subject-specific initiatives.

Do you see a need for a national data sharing repository or smaller repositories for specialized arenas?

Yes – though international subject specific would probably be most successful.

What agency should run it/them and why? If you advocate a system of smaller repositories organized around specific disciplines, should there be an overview agency that coordinates/supervises interactions among databases? If so, describe the agency’s proposed function.

I think the best initiatives come from within the specific scientific communities themselves. So although I think that some sort of overview agency may be useful, the communities themselves, led by funders, must take the initiative.

What are your suggestions on the most powerful ways to combat researchers’ resistance to data sharing? How effective do you see the requirements now in place by the NIH and high-profile journals requiring data sharing as condition of funding? Do you believe more teeth should be put into these requirements and, if so, how?

The most powerful way to ensure sharing is for funders to require it as a condition of funding and journals to require it as a condition of publication.

Identify incentives that would enhance scientists’ acceptance of data sharing?

Very easy to use systems.