Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30225032›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2018

Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal

Tom E Hardwicke, Maya B Mathur, Kyle MacDonald, Gustav Nilsonne, George C Banks, Mallory C Kidwell, Alicia Hofelich Mohr, Elizabeth Clayton, Erica J Yoon, Michael Henry Tessler and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Beliefs about social dynamics and open science.Royal Society open science · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Tom E HardwickeMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9485-4952
Maya B MathurQuantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Kyle MacDonaldDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Gustav NilsonneDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5273-0150
George C BanksBelk College of Business, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Mallory C KidwellDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Alicia Hofelich MohrLiberal Arts Technologies and Innovated Services (LATIS), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Elizabeth ClaytonThe Organizational Science Program, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Erica J YoonDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7895-6390
Michael Henry TesslerDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Richie L LenneDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sara AltmanDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Bria LongDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Michael C FrankDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Access to data is a critical feature of an efficient, progressive and ultimately self-correcting scientific ecosystem. But the extent to which in-principle benefits of data sharing are realized in practice is unclear. Crucially, it is largely unknown whether published findings can be reproduced by repeating reported analyses upon shared data ('analytic reproducibility'). To investigate this, we conducted an observational evaluation of a mandatory open data policy introduced at the journal

Indexed as

interrupted time seriesjournal policymeta-scienceopen dataopen sciencereproducibility

Identifiers

PMID30225032
PMCPMC6124055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.