Table 1
Reasons authors may be reluctant to share their data
| Poor research practices |
| Absence of a culture of data sharing in the academic field |
| Potential for discovery of errors in the data creator’s published analyses |
| Inadequate documentation of data-related procedures |
| Failure to save and safeguard data, metadata or statistical code |
| Loss of data or interpretive expertise due to the retirement or migration of personnel |
| Limited data storage and dissemination mechanisms |
| Relatively few journals or other outlets devoted to data publication |
| Lack of technical expertise in data publishing |
| Hardware or software problems |
| Obsolete devices and file formats |
| Limited awareness of open data principles |
| Concern that public disclosure of data will violate legal or ethical norms |
| Difficulty dealing with open access licensing terms (e.g. Creative Commons licenses) |
| Ongoing research |
| Desire to keep data private until the research project is completed |
| Expenditure of effort |
| Considerable effort required to produce documentation that is unlikely to be needed by the data creator in his or her own research |
| Awareness that the expenditure of effort needed to comply with a data request, even if minimal, could be otherwise devoted to activities that bring greater rewards |
| Inadequate credit for data-sharing activities |
| Reluctance to share valuable data due to a general sense of ownership |
| Absence of universal mechanisms, such as authorship and citation, by which data creators can be recognized and rewarded |
| Concern that the costs of data dissemination are considerably greater than the individual rewards – that the sharing of data without compensation, and the use of data without credit, are inherently unfair |
| Concern that commercial firms will use the data inappropriately or without compensation |
| Potential for misuse of data |
| Fear that data dissemination will facilitate plagiarism |
| Concern that users without an understanding of the data will draw unwarranted or misleading conclusions |
Table 2
Variables for which information was compiled
| General information |
| URL |
| Open access? |
| Year founded |
| Items published, July 2018 through June 2019 |
| Percentage of published items that are data reports |
| Subject scope |
| Publisher |
| Publisher information |
| General note |
| Characteristics of data reports |
| Term for data reports |
| Typical length of data reports |
| Required or recommended sections of data reports |
| Original or secondary data? |
| Data files hosted on journal’s platform or elsewhere? |
| % of data files included in text of report |
| % of data files on journal’s website as supplementary files |
| % of data files in external data repository |
| % of data files not found |
| Data hosting note |
| Editors and peer review |
| Editor(s) in chief |
| Editorial board |
| Review process |
| Time from submission to first decision |
| Time from acceptance to publication |
| Acceptance rate |
| Licenses and article processing charges |
| Creative Commons license(s) for OA data reports |
| Article processing charge (APC) for OA data reports |
| Waivers or reductions of the APC? |
| Indexing and citation impact |
| Indexed in BIOSIS? |
| Indexed in PubMed? |
| Indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI)? |
| Indexed in Scopus? |
| SCI Impact Factor percentile |
| Scopus CiteScore percentile |
Table 3
Data journals included in the investigation
| Data journal | OA? | Founded | Itemsa | Data reportsb | Subject scope | Publisher |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data in Brief | Yes | 2014 | 1,520 | 100% | All subjects | Elsevier |
| Scientific Data | Yes | 2014 | 274 | 90% | Natural sciences | Springer Nature |
| IUCrData | Yes | 2016 | 181 | 100% | Crystallography & related fields | International Union of Crystallography |
| Data | Yes | 2016 | 145 | 50% | Natural scis., some social scis. | Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
| Earth System Science Data (ESSD) | Yes | 2009 | 130 | 55% | Earth system sciences | Copernicus Publications |
| Biodiversity Data Journal | Yes | 2013 | 80 | 74% | Biodiversity science | Pensoft |
| Geoscience Data Journal | Yes | 2013 | 18 | 87% | Geosciences | Wiley, Royal Meteorological Society |
| Journal of Open Psychology Data | Yes | 2013 | 4 | 97% | Psychology | Ubiquity Press |
| Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research | Yes | 2016 | 2 | 100% | Agriculture & food (in)security | Several universities and research foundations |
| Open Health Data | Yes | 2013 | 2 | 100% | Health & medicine | Ubiquity Press |
| Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data | No | 1956 | 569 | 97% | Materials science | American Chemical Society |
| Chemical Data Collections | No | 2016 | 155 | 100% | Chemistry | Elsevier |
| Journal of Physical & Chemical Reference Data | No | 1972 | 14 | 99% | Physical sciences | American Institute of Physics, with NIST |
[i] a. Items published, July 2018 through June 2019. Includes data reports, conventional research articles, and other items such as editorials.
b. Percentage of published items that are data reports.
Table 4
Characteristics of data reports in each of the 13 journalsa
| Data journal | Typical length (printed pages)b | Percentage of data file(s)c | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original or secondary data? | Included in text of reportd | On journal’s website as suppl. files | In external data repositorye | Not found | ||
| Data in Brief | 6–9 | Either | 14% | 56% | 26% | 4% |
| Scientific Data | 7–10 | Either | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| IUCrData | 6–10 | Original | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Data | 8–16 | Either | 0% | 28% | 60% | 12% |
| Earth System Science Data (ESSD) | 13–21 | Original | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Biodiversity Data Journal | 12–22 | Original | 26% | 44% | 28% | 2% |
| Geoscience Data Journal | 8–14 | Either | 0% | 0% | 87% | 13% |
| Journal of Open Psychology Data | 4–6 | Either | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research | 6–9 | Either | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Open Health Data | 4–6 | Either | 0% | 4% | 74% | 22% |
| Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data | 8–11 | Original | 60% | 38% | 0% | 2% |
| Chemical Data Collections | 8–14 | Original | 76% | 6% | 10% | 8% |
| Journal of Physical & Chemical Reference Data | 25–40 | Original | 98% | 0% | 0% | 2% |
[i] a. Length and data file statistics are based on the 50 most recent data reports in each journal – or on all the published data reports, for journals with fewer than 50.
b. Each page range represents the middle two-thirds of the values (i.e. the median ± 1 standard deviation, adjusted to account for the natural breaks in the distribution of page lengths).
c. If the same data were presented in multiple places, they were counted in the leftmost column: in text of report rather than on journal’s website, and on journal’s website rather than in external data repository. Data sites owned by the journal publisher but separate from the journal were counted as external repositories.
d. This category includes most chemical data as well as most image data (photographs, blots, diagnostic images, etc.).
e. Includes cases in which the data could be readily located despite an incorrect URL or identifier in the data report.
Table 5
Notes on review processes
| Data in Brief |
| Six criteria: Is the data format in alignment with existing standards? Are the protocol/references for generating data sufficiently explained? Is the data description complete and is data well-documented? Do the authors adequately explain the data’s utility? Are the data potentially reusable? Does the article adhere to the template? |
| Scientific Data |
| Each paper is reviewed by one data standards expert and at least one subject expert based on ‘the technical quality of the procedures used to generate the data, the reuse value of the resulting datasets and their alignment with existing community standards, and the completeness of the data description. [Acceptance] is not based on the perceived impact or novelty of the findings’. |
| IUCrData |
| Single-blind review by at least two reviewers. Papers not accepted after two rounds of revision will not be published. |
| Data |
| Each paper is evaluated by at least two reviewers. Reviewers may choose to sign their reviews. Authors may choose to include the reviewers’ reports as supplementary materials. |
| Earth System Science Data (ESSD) |
| Papers that meet the standards of an initial rapid review are posted to the journal’s website. Readers are invited to submit reviews or comments, and the editors’ decision accounts for both the solicited reviews and any additional remarks. If the paper is accepted, it is published with the referees’ comments (anonymous or attributed), the readers’ comments (attributed), and the authors’ replies. |
| Biodiversity Data Journal |
| After initial editorial review, each paper is sent to two or three nominated reviewers, who are expected to submit their comments within ten days; and to several panel reviewers, who may choose whether to comment. Authors’ revisions are expected within one week, although extensions may be granted. Most revised papers are re-evaluated by the editors, although some are sent for another round of review. |
| Geoscience Data Journal |
| The review process evaluates the data report (completeness, appropriateness of methods, uniqueness, applicability and utility of the data), the metadata (completeness and quality) and the data (accessibility and usability). |
| Journal of Open Psychology Data |
| The review criteria include content, structure and argument, figures/tables, formatting and language. |
| Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research |
| No information provided. |
| Open Health Data |
| The review process evaluates the data report (description of methods, appropriateness of methods, ability to replicate methods, correctness of data description, extent to which reuse of the data is addressed, accessibility of the data) and the data (appropriateness of data repository, accessibility and licensing, file formats, labeling and user notes, study participants’ privacy, inclusion of software or other necessary supplements). |
| Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data |
| ‘Articles should present a significant amount of experimental or computational data on properties of systems of technological or theoretical interest that are not available in the original literature, that have lower uncertainty than those published, or that help resolve conflicts in previously published values.’ |
| Chemical Data Collections |
| Six criteria: Is the data format in alignment with existing standards? Are the protocol/references for generating data sufficiently explained? Is the data description complete and data well-documented? Do the authors adequately explain the data’s utility? Are the data potentially reusable? Does the article adhere to the template? |
| Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data |
| No information provided. |
Table 6
Article processing charges (APCs) and waiver policies
| Data journal | APCa | Waivers and reductions |
|---|---|---|
| Data in Brief | $600 | Possible, especially for authors in developing countries |
| Scientific Data | $1,690 | Automatic for authors in developing countries; possible for others |
| IUCrData | $200 | Possible, especially for authors in developing countries |
| Data | $1,020 | Possible, especially for authors in developing countries and in disciplines with less funding |
| Earth System Science Data (ESSD) | $0 | Not applicable |
| Biodiversity Data Journal | $110–$510 | Automatic for retirees, independent scholars, students, and authors in developing countries |
| Geoscience Data Journal | $1,200–$1,500 | Automatic for authors in developing countries |
| Journal of Open Psychology Data | $0 | Not applicable |
| Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research | Not stated | Not stated |
| Open Health Data | $0 | Not applicable |
| Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data | $1,250–$5,000 | Automatic for authors in developing countries |
| Chemical Data Collections | $500 | Possible, especially for authors in developing countries |
| Journal of Physical & Chemical Reference Data | Not stated | Not stated |
[i] a. The Journal of Open Psychology Data and Open Health Data ask for voluntary contributions of $435 and $125, respectively.
Table 7
Bibliographic index coverage and citation impact (Impact Factor and CiteScore percentiles)
| Data journal | BIOSIS | PubMed | SCI | Scopus | IFa | CiteScoreb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data in Brief | Yes | Yes | — | Yes | — | 71 |
| Scientific Data | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 87 | 99 |
| IUCrData | — | Yes | — | — | — | — |
| Data | — | Yes | — | — | — | — |
| Earth System Science Data (ESSD) | — | Yes | Yes | Yes | 99 | 99 |
| Biodiversity Data Journal | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 26 | 43 |
| Geoscience Data Journal | — | Yes | Yes | Yes | 66 | 88 |
| Journal of Open Psychology Data | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Open Health Data | — | Yes | — | — | — | — |
| Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data | — | Yes | Yes | Yes | 51 | 74 |
| Chemical Data Collections | — | — | — | Yes | — | 41 |
| Journal of Physical & Chemical Reference Data | — | Yes | Yes | Yes | 76 | 91 |
[i] a. IF (Impact Factor) is the average number of times the articles published in the journal over a two-year period (the two years prior to the report year) were cited during the report year, based on SCI data. It is expressed here as a percentile rank among journals in the appropriate subject category.
b. CiteScore is the average number of times the articles published in the journal over a three-year period (the three years prior to the report year) were cited during the report year, based on Scopus data. It is expressed here as a percentile rank among journals in the appropriate subject category.