Questionable practices in data and code sharing policy in high-profile medical journal and research

Author:

Li WeiORCID,Liu XuerongORCID,Zhang QianyuORCID,Shi Liping,Zhang Jing-XuanORCID,Zhang Xiaolin,Luan JiaORCID,Li YueORCID,Xu TingORCID,Zhang Rong,Han Xiaodi,Lei Jingyu,Wang Xueqian,Wang YaozhiORCID,Lan Hai,Chen Xiaohan,Wu Yi,Wu Yan,Xia Lei,Liao Haiping,Shen Chang,Yu Yang,Xu Xinyu,Deng Chao,Liu Pei,Feng ZhengzhiORCID,Huang Chun-JiORCID,Chen ZhiyiORCID

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe spurious and unavailable data/code sharing actions are crashing open medical sciences. In this study, we aimed to illustrate how high-profile medical journals are practically carried out their sharing policies and what questionable practices regarding data/code sharing are conducted by authors.MethodsIn this study, we appraised the policy on data/code availability of high-profile medical journals ranked at Q1 according to Clarivate Journal Citation Report (JCR 2021). Furthermore, we recruited post-publications published by four leading medical journals (i.e., The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet) from the issuing of data/code availability policy to December 2022 for the questionable practices in data/code sharing. The appraisal of papers was conducted by the Data/code Availability Statement Practice Evaluation Tool (DANCE), developed by systematically integrating mainstreaming open data/code guidelines.FindingsWe found that less than one-tenth journals (9.1%) mandated authors to share data/code, with an available statement. Among these journals, 70.6% (61.2%) did not consider censoring (restricting) spurious/invalid data/code sharing in publications. Furthermore, though journal impact factor could predict policy stringency on “offering availability statements” (p< .001), it failed to predict ones in “sharing data/code” (p= .73). For publications, even in leading medical journals (i.e., The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet), only 0.5% of the papers (16/3,191) fully complied with their public sharing statements for reaching reproducibility. Lack of availability statement, declining data/code sharing without reasons, and invalid repositories were leading questionable practices conducted by authors.InterpretationWe clarified specific questionable actions of implementing and practicing the sharing policy both in journal and papers, which should be addressed not only by the supportive publication ecosystem but also by crediting authors for taking responsibility and maintaining scientific integrity in data/code sharing.FundingNo funding.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3