Figure 1
Two bar charts showing researcher’s self-reported understanding of funder data-sharing policies (scale 1 – 10) and their rating of their appropriateness for the researcher’s field (scale 1 – 10). Respondents have been split by whether they are funded by UKRI or not
Figure 2
Bar chart showing the percentage of researchers self-reporting as having deposited in an institutional repository. Respondents have been split by whether they are funded by UKRI or not
Figure 3
Bar chart showing the percentage of researchers giving different reasons for sharing their data. Respondents have been split by whether they are funded by UKRI or not
Figure 4
Percentage of researchers giving each reason why they would not share their data. Respondents have been split by whether they are funded by UKRI or not. The data from the State of Open Data survey has been included where questions aligned – there was no equivalent question about lack of support, commercial data or stakeholder concerns
Figure 5
Percentage of articles in dataset which contain data availability statements, using the non-redundant funder dataset. Data from each institution was calculated separately and error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean of these results. Dashed lines show the percentage of respondents in the survey self-reporting as having written a data availability statement
Table 1
Multivariate logistic regression analysis results assessing the likelihood of an article containing a data availability statement based on (a) the funder, (b) the publisher and (c) the institution
| Comparison | Direction | Exp odds | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Funding source | ||||
| NERC | Non-UKRI | + | 2.57 | 1.06e–5 |
| MRC | Non-UKRI | + | 2.27 | 8.29e–6 |
| BBSRC | Non-UKRI | + | 2.05 | 4.32e–5 |
| STFC | Non-UKRI | + | 1.93 | 6.09e–3 |
| EPSRC | Non-UKRI | + | 1.45 | 3.42e–3 |
| Publisher | ||||
| Frontiers Media SA | Elsevier | + | 383 | 4.32e–9 |
| PLoS | Elsevier | + | 190 | 2.51e–7 |
| BMJ Publishing Group | Elsevier | + | 21.5 | 1.51e–16 |
| MDPI AG | Elsevier | + | 20.7 | 9.97e–48 |
| Nature Publishing Group | Elsevier | + | 13.8 | 2.62e–37 |
| American Astronomical Society | Elsevier | + | 7.88 | 1.42e–6 |
| Oxford University Press | Elsevier | + | 7.78 | 1.37e–20 |
| IOP | Elsevier | + | 6.5 | 4.59e–9 |
| American Society for Microbiology | Elsevier | + | 5.49 | 2.43e–2 |
| Springer | Elsevier | + | 5.2 | 7.09e–22 |
| Optical Society of America | Elsevier | + | 5.0 | 3.64e–2 |
| Institute of Mathematical Statistics | Elsevier | + | 4.79 | 4.76e–2 |
| EDP Sciences | Elsevier | + | 4.66 | 1.58e–3 |
| Wiley Blackwell | Elsevier | + | 3.77 | 7.02e–17 |
| IEEE | Elsevier | – | 0.45 | 2.25e–2 |
| Institutions | ||||
| RG2 | RG4 | + | 1.32 | 4.70e–2 |
| RG4 | RG2 | – | 0.76 | 4.70e–2 |
Figure 6
Percentage of articles in the dataset which contain data availability statements with ‘available on request’, ‘contact authors’ or similar using the non-redundant funder dataset. Data from each institution was calculated separately and error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean of these results. Dashed lines show the percentage of respondents in the survey self-reporting as having previously included an ‘available on request’ statement in an article
Table 2
Multivariate logistic regression analysis results assessing the likelihood of a data availability statement within an article containing ‘data available on request’ based on (a) the funder, (b) the publisher and (c) the institution.
| Comparison | Direction | Exp odds | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Funding source | ||||
| EPSRC | Non-UKRI | – | 0.58 | 2.84e–3 |
| BBSRC | Non-UKRI | – | 0.30 | 4.3e–5 |
| NERC | Non-UKRI | – | 0.29 | 1.61e–5 |
| ESRC | Non-UKRI | – | 0.21 | 8.10e–5 |
| Publisher | ||||
| Frontiers Media SA | Elsevier | + | 7.6 | 1.68e–10 |
| IOP | Elsevier | + | 3.59 | 3.01e–3 |
| BMJ Publishing Group | Elsevier | + | 2.51 | 1.55e–2 |
| Springer | Elsevier | + | 1.77 | 3.88e–2 |
| Royal Society | Elsevier | – | 0.08 | 1.49e–2 |
| Institutions | ||||
| RG2 | RG1 | – | 0.60 | 5.57e–3 |
| RG1 | RG2 | + | 1.67 | 5.57e–3 |
| RG4 | RG2 | + | 1.51 | 3.5e–2 |
| RG2 | RG4 | – | 0.66 | 3.49e–2 |
Figure 7
Percentage of articles in the non-redundant funder dataset which contain data availability statements with direct links to datasets or metadata records. Data from each institution was calculated separately and error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean of these results. Dashed lines show the percentage of respondents in the survey self-reporting as having previously deposited in a repository.
Table 3
Multivariate logistic regression analysis results assessing the likelihood of a data availability statement within a link to an associated data deposit, or metadata page, based on (a) the funder, (b) the publisher and (c) the institution
| Comparison | Direction | Exp odds | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Funding source | ||||
| NERC | Non-UKRI | + | 4.23 | 1.75e–8 |
| ESRC | Non-UKRI | + | 3.45 | 8.73e–5 |
| BBSRC | Non-UKRI | + | 1.90 | 4.07e–3 |
| EPSRC | Non-UKRI | + | 1.83 | 1.04e–3 |
| Publisher | ||||
| MDPI | Elsevier | – | 0.39 | 5.04e–4 |
| Frontiers Media SA | Elsevier | – | 0.38 | 2.75e–3 |
| IOP | Elsevier | – | 0.27 | 9.32e–3 |
| BMJ Publishing Group | Elsevier | – | 0.26 | 9.95e–3 |
| American Chemical Society | Elsevier | + | 16.53 | 2.31e–4 |
| AAAS | Elsevier | + | 14.43 | 1.35e–2 |
| Royal Society of Chemistry | Elsevier | + | 8.45 | 8.08e–3 |
| EDP Sciences | Elsevier | + | 6.52 | 7.55e–3 |
| Nature Publishing Group | Elsevier | + | 2.07 | 3.98e–3 |
| Institutions | ||||
| RG2 | RG1 | + | 1.56 | 1.72e–2 |
| RG3 | RG1 | + | 1.55 | 2.51e–2 |
| RG1 | RG2 | – | 0.64 | 1.72e–2 |
| RG1 | RG3 | – | 0.65 | 2.51e–2 |