ArticlePloS one2018
Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis Reveals Challenges and Gaps for Genome-to-Phenome Research Underpinning Plant Drought Response.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Incentivising research data sharing: a scoping review.Wellcome open research · 2021Pooled it
- The community engagement and empowerment cycle: FAIRagro's framework to foster cultural change towards FAIR RDM practices in agrosystem science and beyond.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Data sharing in acupuncture meta-analyses: Associations with journal policies and practical considerations.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Article
- What Can We Learn from the Retraction of Medical Articles.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- 3D revisualization: a new method to revisit segmented data.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The challenges of research data management in cardiovascular science: a DGK and DZHK position paper-executive summary.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024Review
- Searches as data: archiving and sharing search strategies using an institutional data repository.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Releasing synthetic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): Guidelines and applied examples.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Measuring data rot: An analysis of the continued availability of shared data from a Single University.PloS one · 2024Article
- Seek and you may (not) find: A multi-institutional analysis of where research data are shared.PloS one · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for starting FAIR discussions in your community.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Delivering on NIH data sharing requirements: avoiding Open Data in Appearance Only.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Review
- A perspective on using partial least squares structural equation modelling in data articles.Data in brief · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing.
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.