Questionable practices in data and code sharing policy in high-profile medical journal and research
Li, W.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, L.; Zhang, J.-X.; Zhang, X.; Luan, J.; Li, Y.; Xu, T.; Zhang, R.; Han, X.; Lei, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Lan, H.; Chen, X.; Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Xia, L.; Liao, H.; Shen, C.; Yu, Y.; Xu, X.; Deng, C.; Liu, P.; Feng, Z.; Huang, C.; Chen, Z.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe 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.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 96%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 96%
- The Rise of Open Data Practices Among Bioscientists at the University of Edinburgh 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 97%
- Open access policies of high impact medical journals: a cross-sectional study 94%
- A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 94%
- Full Publication of Preprint Articles in Prevention Research: An Analysis of Publication Proportions and Results Consistency 92%
- Digitalization impacts the COVID-19 pandemic and the stringency of government measures 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 96%
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 95%
- Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. 93%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 91%
- A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research in Africa 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.