deletions | additions       diff --git a/abstract.tex b/abstract.tex  index 2dc74f5..ab65f2f 100644  --- a/abstract.tex  +++ b/abstract.tex 
...
No, I don't have a website where I store these data. Most of it is in various stages of mess. ---An Astronomer  \end{quote}  We analyze the historical practices history  of data sharing in Astronomy over the past fifteen years. An analysis of URL links embedded in the published literature reveals that in 2011, 44\% of links published a decade earlier, in 2001, were broken. Within the broken links, xxactually math in figure 1, figure 2, and table 1 combined doesn't make sense to me, so I need Alberto to explain and then fill in numbers for this sentence, intended to break down tilde and curated links.xx The total number of links included in papers in Astronomy rose dramatically from 1997 until 2005, when it leveled off at around 1500. This rise indicates an increased interest in data-sharing over the same time period that the web saw its most dramatic growth in usage in the developed world. To gauge astronomers' current data sharing practices and preferences, we interviewed 12 scientists in-depth, and collected survey responses from 173 scientists online, all at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge, MA. Both the in-depth interviews and the online survey indicate that there is no philosophical objection to data-sharing in principle in astronomy, and nearly all astronomers would share as much of their data as others wanted if it were practicable. Key reasons that more data are not presently shared more efficiently in astronomy include: the difficulty of sharing large data sets; over reliance on non-robust, non-reproducible mechanisms for sharing data (e.g. emailing it); unfamiliarity with options that make data-sharing easier (faster) and/or more robust; and, lastly, a sense that other researchers would not want the data to be shared.