Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?

Background There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature. Methods The online author’s instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal’s data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal. Results A total of 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. A total of 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. A total of 9.1% of journals mentioned data sharing indirectly, and only 14.8% addressed protein, proteomic, and/or genomic data sharing. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing criteria. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals. Discussion Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.

[1]  F. Collins,et al.  Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility , 2014, Nature.

[2]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[3]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[4]  Salvatore Mele,et al.  Enabling Sharing and Reuse of Scientific Data , 2014 .

[5]  J. Drazen,et al.  The Importance - and the Complexities - of Data Sharing. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Kei Koizumi,et al.  Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research , 2016 .

[7]  Marcia McNutt,et al.  Data sharing , 2016, Science.

[8]  C. Tenopir,et al.  Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions , 2011, PloS one.

[9]  Ruth E. Duerr,et al.  Achieving human and machine accessibility of cited data in scholarly publications , 2015, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[10]  Anna Krampl,et al.  Journal Citation Reports , 2019, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[11]  Andrew F. Magee,et al.  The Dawn of Open Access to Phylogenetic Data , 2014, PloS one.

[12]  Christine L. Borgman,et al.  The conundrum of sharing research data , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Jason E. Stewart,et al.  Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[14]  Carly Strasser,et al.  Recommendations for the Role of Publishers in Access to Data , 2014, PLoS biology.

[15]  Stefan Schulz,et al.  Faculty Opinions recommendation of The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. , 2018, Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature.

[16]  Wendy W. Chapman,et al.  A review of journal policies for sharing research data , 2008, ELPUB.

[17]  Nicole A. Vasilevsky,et al.  On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature , 2013, PeerJ.

[18]  Paul Sturges,et al.  Research data sharing: Developing a stakeholder‐driven model for journal policies , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Wendy W. Chapman,et al.  Public sharing of research datasets: A pilot study of associations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[20]  A. Vickers,et al.  Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals , 2009, PloS one.

[21]  C. Barbui Sharing all types of clinical data and harmonizing journal standards , 2016, BMC Medicine.

[22]  V. Stodden,et al.  Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals , 2013, PloS one.

[23]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mandating Sharing , 1995 .

[24]  Lewis Turco,et al.  At the Fair , 1957 .

[25]  Iain Hrynaszkiewicz,et al.  Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations , 2016, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[26]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions , 2016, bioRxiv.

[27]  Michael J. Zigmond,et al.  The Essential Nature of Sharing in Science , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[28]  Allyson L. Lister,et al.  BioSharing: curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences , 2016, Database J. Biol. Databases Curation.