BMJ Open – InfoDoc MicroVeille

Authors : Sanghee Oh, Yunseo Park, Seyun Sim

Data Availability Statements (DAS) have become a standard mechanism for promoting transparency and reproducibility in open-access mega journals, yet questions remain about how effectively they support meaningful data sharing in practice and how these practices vary across national research contexts.

This study examines data-sharing practices in the medical and health sciences through a comparative analysis of global publications and Korea-affiliated articles in three mega journals indexed in PubMed Central: PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports and BMJ Open (2020–2024). DAS from 176,145 articles were collected from PubMed Central using an automated pipeline with manual validation and classified into a seven-category typology reflecting levels of data accessibility and reuse.

Results indicate that although DAS inclusion increased over time, repository-based data sharing remains limited, while ‘data available upon request’ continues to be prevalent. Clear differences are observed across journals: PLOS ONE shows greater use of repository-based and in-article sharing, whereas Scientific Reports and BMJ Open rely more heavily on ‘data available upon request’. Korea-affiliated articles largely follow global trends, with slightly greater reliance on national public data repositories.

Repository use is concentrated among a small number of international multidisciplinary platforms and selected national biomedical databases. The findings reveal a persistent gap between formal DAS compliance and effective data accessibility, indicating the need for clearer, more actionable data-sharing guidance.

URL : Data Availability Statements in Mega Journals: A Comparative Analysis of Global and Korea-Affiliated Publications in Health and Medical Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2083

Authors : Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Adrian Aldcroft, Adrian G. Barnett

Sharing data and code are important components of reproducible research. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are no well-established evidence-based incentives that reward data sharing, nor randomized studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of data sharing policies at increasing data sharing.

A simple incentive, such as an Open Data Badge, might provide the change needed to increase data sharing in health and medical research. This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial (protocol registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/PXWZQ) with two groups, control and intervention, with 80 research articles published in BMJ Open per group, with a total of 160 research articles.

The intervention group received an email offer for an Open Data Badge if they shared their data along with their final publication and the control group received an email with no offer of a badge if they shared their data with their final publication.

The primary outcome was the data sharing rate. Badges did not noticeably motivate researchers who published in BMJ Open to share their data; the odds of awarding badges were nearly equal in the intervention and control groups (odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI [0.1, 9.0]). Data sharing rates were low in both groups, with just two datasets shared in each of the intervention and control groups.

The global movement towards open science has made significant gains with the development of numerous data sharing policies and tools.

What remains to be established is an effective incentive that motivates researchers to take up such tools to share their data.

URL : Did awarding badges increase data sharing in BMJ Open? A randomized controlled trial

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191818