Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Resnik DB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6533124 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5407277 | biostudies-other
Project description:This study estimates the effect of data sharing on the citations of academic articles, using journal policies as a natural experiment. We begin by examining 17 high-impact journals that have adopted the requirement that data from published articles be publicly posted. We match these 17 journals to 13 journals without policy changes and find that empirical articles published just before their change in editorial policy have citation rates with no statistically significant difference from those published shortly after the shift. We then ask whether this null result stems from poor compliance with data sharing policies, and use the data sharing policy changes as instrumental variables to examine more closely two leading journals in economics and political science with relatively strong enforcement of new data policies. We find that articles that make their data available receive 97 additional citations (estimate standard error of 34). We conclude that: a) authors who share data may be rewarded eventually with additional scholarly citations, and b) data-posting policies alone do not increase the impact of articles published in a journal unless those policies are enforced.
| S-EPMC6919593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany scholarly journals have established their own data-related policies, which specify their enforcement of data sharing, the types of data to be submitted, and their procedures for making data available. However, except for the journal impact factor and the subject area, the factors associated with the overall strength of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals remain unknown. This study examines how factors, including impact factor, subject area, type of journal publisher, and geographical location of the publisher are related to the strength of the data sharing policy.MethodsFrom each of the 178 categories of the Web of Science's 2017 edition of Journal Citation Reports, the top journals in each quartile (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) were selected in December 2018. Of the resulting 709 journals (5%), 700 in the fields of life, health, and physical sciences were selected for analysis. Four of the authors independently reviewed the results of the journal website searches, categorized the journals' data sharing policies, and extracted the characteristics of individual journals. Univariable multinomial logistic regression analyses were initially conducted to determine whether there was a relationship between each factor and the strength of the data sharing policy. Based on the univariable analyses, a multivariable model was performed to further investigate the factors related to the presence and/or strength of the policy.ResultsOf the 700 journals, 308 (44.0%) had no data sharing policy, 125 (17.9%) had a weak policy, and 267 (38.1%) had a strong policy (expecting or mandating data sharing). The impact factor quartile was positively associated with the strength of the data sharing policies. Physical science journals were less likely to have a strong policy relative to a weak policy than Life science journals (relative risk ratio [RRR], 0.36; 95% CI [0.17-0.78]). Life science journals had a greater probability of having a weak policy relative to no policy than health science journals (RRR, 2.73; 95% CI [1.05-7.14]). Commercial publishers were more likely to have a weak policy relative to no policy than non-commercial publishers (RRR, 7.87; 95% CI, [3.98-15.57]). Journals by publishers in Europe, including the majority of those located in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, were more likely to have a strong data sharing policy than a weak policy (RRR, 2.99; 95% CI [1.85-4.81]).ConclusionsThese findings may account for the increase in commercial publishers' engagement in data sharing and indicate that European national initiatives that encourage and mandate data sharing may influence the presence of a strong policy in the associated journals. Future research needs to explore the factors associated with varied degrees in the strength of a data sharing policy as well as more diverse characteristics of journals related to the policy strength.
| S-EPMC7566749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of responsible sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies are well recognized, but stakeholders often disagree on how to align those benefits with privacy risks, costs, and incentives for clinical trialists and sponsors. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required a data sharing statement (DSS) from submissions reporting clinical trials effective July 1, 2018. The required DSSs provide a window into current data sharing rates, practices, and norms among trialists and sponsors.ObjectiveTo evaluate the implementation of the ICMJE DSS requirement in 3 leading medical journals: JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).Design, setting, and participantsThis is a cross-sectional study of clinical trial reports published as articles in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM between July 1, 2018, and April 4, 2020. Articles not eligible for DSS, including observational studies and letters or correspondence, were excluded. A MEDLINE/PubMed search identified 487 eligible clinical trials in JAMA (112 trials), Lancet (147 trials), and NEJM (228 trials). Two reviewers evaluated each of the 487 articles independently.ExposurePublication of clinical trial reports in an ICMJE medical journal requiring a DSS.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes of the study were declared data availability and actual data availability in repositories. Other captured outcomes were data type, access, and conditions and reasons for data availability or unavailability. Associations with funding sources were examined.ResultsA total of 334 of 487 articles (68.6%; 95% CI, 64%-73%) declared data sharing, with nonindustry NIH-funded trials exhibiting the highest rates of declared data sharing (89%; 95% CI, 80%-98%) and industry-funded trials the lowest (61%; 95% CI, 54%-68%). However, only 2 IPD sets (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-1.5%) were actually deidentified and publicly available as of April 10, 2020. The remaining were supposedly accessible via request to authors (143 of 334 articles [42.8%]), repository (89 of 334 articles [26.6%]), and company (78 of 334 articles [23.4%]). Among the 89 articles declaring that IPD would be stored in repositories, only 17 (19.1%) deposited data, mostly because of embargo and regulatory approval. Embargo was set in 47.3% of data-sharing articles (158 of 334), and in half of them the period exceeded 1 year or was unspecified.Conclusions and relevanceMost trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM after the implementation of the ICMJE policy declared their intent to make clinical data available. However, a wide gap between declared and actual data sharing exists. To improve transparency and data reuse, journals should promote the use of unique pointers to data set location and standardized choices for embargo periods and access requirements.
| S-EPMC7844597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the increase in the number of journals issuing data policies requiring authors to make data underlying reporting findings publicly available, authors do not always do so, and when they do, the data do not always meet standards of quality that allow others to verify or extend published results. This phenomenon suggests the need to consider the effectiveness of journal data policies to present and articulate transparency requirements, and how well they facilitate (or hinder) authors' ability to produce and provide access to data, code, and associated materials that meet quality standards for computational reproducibility. This article describes the results of a research study that examined the ability of journal-based data policies to: 1) effectively communicate transparency requirements to authors, and 2) enable authors to successfully meet policy requirements. To do this, we conducted a mixed-methods study that examined individual data policies alongside editors' and authors' interpretation of policy requirements to answer the following research questions. Survey responses from authors and editors along with results from a content analysis of data policies found discrepancies among editors' assertion of data policy requirements, authors' understanding of policy requirements, and the requirements stated in the policy language as written. We offer explanations for these discrepancies and offer recommendations for improving authors' understanding of policies and increasing the likelihood of policy compliance.
| S-EPMC7094825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders' data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders' data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German' funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees' perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders' data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.
| S-EPMC10852319 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4732953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Analyses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have grown to be a major topic in scientometric literature. Despite widespread and justified critique concerning the JIF and its application, the size of a journal as a predictor for its longitudinal variability-or stability-on a long-term level has not yet comprehensively been analyzed. This study aims to provide robust evidence for an association between JIF variability and the size of journals, expressed by the number of published articles (citable items). For this purpose, the complete set of journals included in the Incite Journal Citation Reports (JCR) with an JIF in the 2017 JCR edition (n = 8750) were analyzed for the association between journal size and longitudinal JIF dynamics. Our results, based on n = 4792 journals with a complete JIF data set over the timespan of 12 annual JIF changes show that larger journals publishing more citable items experience smaller annual changes of the JIF than smaller journals, yet with this association being reversed for journals with a very large number of total cites. Consequently and in accordance with the genuine intention of the JIF to serve as a basis for decisions on journal subscriptions, evaluation of current changes of the JIF have to be accompanied by consideration of the journal's size in order to be accurate and sensible.
| S-EPMC6874322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Citations for randomized controlled trials (RCT) are important for the dissemination of study results. However, predictors of citations for RCTs have not been investigated. The study aimed to investigate the predictors of citations for RCTs in sepsis literature. RCTs that investigated the efficacy of treatment strategies on clinical outcomes in sepsis patients were included, and publication dates were restricted to the period from 2000 to 2016. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews and interventions. A multivariable linear regression model was built to investigate the independent variables associated with total citations. In total, 160 RCTs met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The median of total citations was 28.5 (IQR: 6-76). The journal impact factor (IF) for articles was 6.312 (IQR: 3.143-7.214). The dependent variable was transformed by the square root to improve normality and meet the assumption of homoscedasticity. The journal IF (coefficient: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.25) was independently associated with total citations. Large samples were associated with more total citations (coefficient: 0.0026; 95% CI: 0.0013, 0.0039). The study demonstrated that the journal IF was a major determinant of the RCT's total citation number.
| S-EPMC5207738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing.
| S-EPMC7717900 | biostudies-literature