Enforcing public data archiving policies in academic publishing: A study of ecology journals

Abstract

To improve the quality and efficiency of research, groups within the scientific community seek to exploit the value of data sharing. Funders, institutions, and specialist organizations are developing and implementing strategies to encourage or mandate data sharing within and across disciplines, with varying degrees of success. Academic journals in ecology and evolution have adopted several types of public data archiving policies requiring authors to make data underlying scholarly manuscripts freely available. Yet anecdotes from the community and studies evaluating data availability suggest that these policies have not obtained the desired effects, both in terms of quantity and quality of available datasets. We conducted a qualitative, interview-based study with journal editorial staff and other stakeholders in the academic publishing process to examine how journals enforce data archiving policies. We specifically sought to establish who editors and other stakeholders perceive as responsible for ensuring data completeness and quality in the peer review process. Our analysis revealed little consensus with regard to how data archiving policies should be enforced and who should hold authors accountable for dataset submissions. Themes in interviewee responses included hopefulness that reviewers would take the initiative to review datasets and trust in authors to ensure the completeness and quality of their datasets. We highlight problematic aspects of these thematic responses and offer potential starting points for improvement of the public data archiving process.

Open Science principles for accelerating trait-based science across the Tree of Life

“…Despite the recognized importance of traits, several common research practices limit our capacity for meaningful synthesis across the Tree of Life. These practices include failure to publish usable datasets alongside new findings 40 , missing or inadequate metadata 41 , minimal descriptions of methods used to collate, clean and analyse trait datasets in published works 42 , and inadequate coordination between researchers and institutions with common goals, such as filling strategic spatial or taxonomic gaps in trait knowledge 43,44 . Our limited ability to access and redistribute trait data contributes to the widespread reproducibility crisis within science 45 .…”

The Emergency Medicine Facing the Challenge of Open Science

“…Regarding to the fifth section (statement of Supplementary material), this study is only focused on analyzing the raw data shared as Supplementary material (type of material that can be reused and shared). Following other studies [23,24], this modality is one of the three different ways currently existing to share data in the scientific context: i) adding the raw data as Supplementary material to the publication, ii) being available upon request to the authors and iii) uploading the raw data to a data repository.…”

A synthetic dataset primer for the biobehavioural sciences to promote reproducibility and hypothesis-generation

“…Journals have adopted a spectrum of public data archiving (PDA) policies, ranging from the policies that data should be made "available upon request" all the way to mandated data deposition in peer-reviewed journals dedicated to open data (Sholler et al, 2019). While an "available upon request" PDA policy is better than no policy at all (Stodden et al, 2018), such datasets are often difficult to retrieve in practice as corresponding authors become unreachable or original datasets are lost (Couture et al, 2018;Stodden et al, 2018;Wicherts et al, 2006).…”