ReviewThe American psychologist
Data sharing in psychology.
Review in The American psychologist. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-reported availability of research data in American Psychological Association journal articles: a cross-sectional investigation.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Introducing Data Descriptors: A New Article Type to Advance Data-Driven Science.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
- Autism data sharing: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Evaluating the prevalence and application of data sharing statements in high-impact ophthalmology journals.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Student's performance dataset on multidimensional 21st-century thinking skills in physics ability assessment.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Data sharing practices in high-impact rehabilitation journals.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Applying an ELSI lens to real-world data and novel genomic insights for personalized mental healthcare.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- When open data closes the door: A critical examination of the past, present and the potential future for open data guidelines in journals.The British journal of social psychology · 2023Article
- Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?Brain communications · 2023Review
- Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022Article
- Perceptions and Opinions Towards Data-Sharing: A Survey of Addiction Journal Editorial Board Members.The journal of scientific practice and integrity · 2022Article
- Open science practices for eating disorders research.The International journal of eating disorders · 2021Article
- Sharing and organizing research products as R packages.Behavior research methods · 2021Article
- Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Did awarding badges increase data sharing inRoyal Society open science · 2020Article
- The Confidence Database.Nature human behaviour · 2020Article
- Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Routine data sharing, defined here as the publication of the primary data and any supporting materials required to interpret the data acquired as part of a research study, is still in its infancy in psychology, as in many domains. Nevertheless, with increased scrutiny on reproducibility and more funder mandates requiring sharing of data, the issues surrounding data sharing are moving beyond whether data sharing is a benefit or a bane to science, to what data should be shared and how. Here, we present an overview of these issues, specifically focusing on the sharing of so-called "long tail" data, that is, data generated by individual laboratories as part of largely hypothesis-driven research. We draw on experiences in other domains to discuss attitudes toward data sharing, cost-benefits, best practices and infrastructure. We argue that the publishing of data sets is an integral component of 21st-century scholarship. Moreover, although not all issues around how and what to share have been resolved, a consensus on principles and best practices for effective data sharing and the infrastructure for sharing many types of data are largely in place. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.