The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need for timely data and information to aid interventions and decision-making. Efforts by different actors resulted in various data-driven initiatives, constituting experiences of deploying data in the COVID-19 response and valuable lessons that can advance the sharing and use of data for social good beyond COVID-19. This commentary highlights key case studies detailing the experiences and lessons of those who implemented data science solutions for the COVID-19 response, as well as findings from 74 data-centric COVID-19 interventions. These interventions demonstrated successful data access strategies, productive intervention processes, and effective stakeholder engagement, all of which present potential pathways to overcoming data access obstacles across Africa. Additionally, this study also briefly explores three areas for action (i.e., institutions, people, and platforms) that can inform future policy development to increase data sharing for societal benefit in the long term.

Archaeologists frequently use written guidelines such as site manuals, recording forms, and digital prompts during excavations to create usable data within and across projects. Most written guidelines emphasize creating either standardized datasets or narrative summaries; however, previous research has demonstrated that the resulting datasets are often difficult to (re)use. Our study analyzed observations and interviews conducted with four archaeological excavation teams, as well as interviews with archaeological data reusers, to evaluate how archaeologists use and implement written guidelines. These excavation team and reuser experiences suggest that archaeologists need more specific best practices to create and implement written guidelines that improve the quality and usability of archaeological data. We present recommendations to improve written guidelines that focus on a project's methods, end-of-season documentation, and naming practices. We also present a Written Guidelines Checklist to help project directors improve their written guidelines before, during, and after fieldwork as part of a collaborative process. Ideally, these best practices for written guidelines will make it easier for team members and future reusers to incorporate their own and others’ archaeological data into their research.

Although the use of data is important for informing inclusive practice, research into Australian early childhood educators’ data practice is limited. Types of data collected in early childhood settings and the use of these data were investigated. Surveys completed by 105 early childhood educators across Australia indicated that anecdotal written records, photos, and children’s work samples were the predominant data collection strategies used for both children with and without additional needs. More educators reported that they collected counted or timed behaviour data for children with additional needs than for those without additional needs. One third of educators did not indicate that they collect this type of data. The majority of educators indicated that they value the use of data in their practice, reported that they use data for progress monitoring and modification of activities to meet the needs of individuals with additional needs, and perceived that they were confident in using the data collection strategies that they nominated. The data that these Australian early childhood educators used were predominantly qualitative, suggesting that training is needed for educators to collect and utilise both qualitative and quantitative data to assist with instructional decision-making.