The citation advantage of linking publications to research data

Abstract

Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing such links. We consider 531, 889 journal articles published by PLOS and BMC, develop an automatic system for labelling their data availability statements according to four categories based on their content and the type of data availability they display, and finally analyze the citation advantage of different statement categories via regression. We find that, following mandated publisher policies, data availability statements become very common. In 2018 93.7% of 21,793 PLOS articles and 88.2% of 31,956 BMC articles had data availability statements. Data availability statements containing a link to data in a repository-rather than being available on request or included as supporting information files-are a fraction of the total. In 2017 and 2018, 20.8% of PLOS publications and 12.2% of BMC publications provided DAS containing a link to data in a repository. We also find an association between articles that include statements that link to data in a repository and up to 25.36% (± 1.07%) higher citation impact on average, using a citation prediction model. We discuss the potential implications of these results for authors (researchers) and journal publishers who make the effort of sharing their data in repositories. All our data and code are made available in order to reproduce and extend our results.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 78

1. 1.

   Hodson S, Molloy L. Current Best Practice for Research Data Management Policies. 2015.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   New policy for structural data. Nature. 1998;394 (6689).

   Not in our library10.1038/27971

3. 3.
   Implementing publisher policies that inform, support and encourage authors to share data: two case studies · 2019

   Not checked
4. 4.

   Hrynaszkiewicz I, Birukou A, Astell M, Swaminathan S, Kenall A, Khodiyar V. Standardising and harmonising research data policy in scholarly publishing. IJDC. 2017;12(1).

   Not in our library10.2218/ijdc.v12i1.531

5. 5.

   Announcement: Where are the data? Nature. 2016;537 (7619).

   Not in our library10.1038/537138a

6. 6.

   Murphy F, Samors RJ. Belmont Forum Data Accessibility Statement Policy and Template—Endorsed 18 October 2018. 2018.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Schmidt B, Gemeinholzer B, Treloar A. Open data in global environmental research: The Belmont forum’s open data survey. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0146695

   Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0146695

8. 8.

   Giofrè D, Cumming G, Fresc L, Boedker I, Tressoldi P. The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors’ reporting of statistics and use of open research practices. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(4):e0175583

   Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0175583

9. 9.

   Vines TH, Andrew RL, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Kane NC, et al Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J. 2013;27(4):1304–1308.

   Not in our library10.1096/fj.12-218164

10. 10.

    Science D, Hahnel M, Fane B, Treadway J, Baynes G, Wilkinson R, et al. The State of Open Data Report. 2018.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am Psychol. 2006;61(7):726–728.

    Not in our library10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.726

12. 12.

    Rowhani-Farid A, Barnett AG. Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational stud. BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e011784

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011784

13. 13.

    Vasilevsky NA, Minnier J, Haendel MA, Champieux RE. Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark? PeerJ. 2017;5:e3208

    Not in our library10.7717/peerj.3208

14. 14.

    Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P, Cristea I, Fanelli D, Moher D, et al Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine. BMJ. 2018;360:k400

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.k400

15. 15.
    Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition · 2018

    No notice
16. 16.

    Federer LM, Belter CW, Joubert DJ, Livinski A, Lu YL, Snyders LN, et al Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(5):e0194768

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0194768

17. 17.

    McDonald L, Schultze A, Simpson A, Graham S, Wasiak R, Ramagopalan SV. A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study. F1000Research. 2017;6:1708

    Not in our library10.12688/f1000research.12673.1

18. 18.

    Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P, Cristea I, Fanelli D, Moher D, et al Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine. BMJ. 2018; p. k400

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.k400

19. 19.

    Park H, Wolfram D. Research software citation in the Data Citation Index: Current practices and implications for research software sharing and reuse. Journal of Informetrics. 2019;13(2):574–582.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.005

20. 20.

    Longo DL, Drazen JM. Data Sharing. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374(3):276–277.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejme1516564

21. 21.

    Milham MP, Craddock RC, Son JJ, Fleischmann M, Clucas J, Xu H, et al Assessment of the impact of shared brain imaging data on the scientific literature. Nature Communications. 2018;9(1).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-018-04976-1

22. 22.

    Popkin G. Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career. Nature. 2019;569(7756):445–447.

    Not in our library10.1038/d41586-019-01506-x

23. 23.
    Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017 · 2018

    No notice
24. 24.
    Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate · 2007

    No notice
25. 25.
    Data reuse and the open data citation advantage · 2013

    No notice
26. 26.

    Sears JR. Data Sharing Effect on Article Citation Rate in Paleoceanography. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2011; p. IN53B–1628.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Henneken EA, Accomazzi A. Linking to Data: Effect on Citation Rates in Astronomy. In: Ballester P, Egret D, Lorente NPF, editors. Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI. vol. 461 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series; 2012. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Dorch BF, Drachen TM, Ellegaard O. The data sharing advantage in astrophysics. IAU. 2015;11(A29A):172–175.

    Not in our library10.1017/s1743921316002696

29. 29.

    Christensen G, Dafoe A, Miguel E, Moore DA, Rose AK. A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal policies as a natural experiment. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0225883

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0225883

30. 30.

    Grant R, Hrynaszkiewicz I. The impact on authors and editors of introducing Data Availability Statements at Nature journals. International Journal of Digital Curation. 2018;13(1):195–203.

    Not in our library10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.614

31. 31.

    PubMed. Open Access Collection; 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/tools/openftlist. Downloaded using the FTP service in February 2019.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    Python Core Team. Python: A dynamic, open source programming language; 2001–. Available from: https://www.python.org.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Jones E, Oliphant T, Peterson P, et al. SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python; 2001–. Available from: http://www.scipy.org.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011;12:2825–2830.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    McKinney W. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. 2010; p. 51–56.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Stéfan van der Walt CC, Varoquaux G. The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation. Computing in Science & Engineering. 2011;13:22–30.

    Not in our library10.1109/mcse.2011.37

37. 37.

    Bird S, Loper E, Klein E. Natural Language Processing with Python; 2009.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    Hunter JD. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science & Engineering. 2007;9:90–95.

    Not in our library10.1109/mcse.2007.55

39. 39.

    Waskom M, et al. mwaskom/seaborn: v0.8.1 (September 2017); 2017. Available from:.

    Not in our library10.5281/zenodo.883859

40. 40.

    Řehůřek R, Sojka P. Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks. Valletta, Malta: ELRA; 2010. p. 45–50.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 5

• CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials · 2025
  No notice
• SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials · 2025
  No notice
• Creating clear and informative image-based figures for scientific publications. · 2021
  Not checked
• Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines · 2021
  No notice
• ODDPub – a Text-Mining Algorithm to Detect Data Sharing in Biomedical Publications · 2020
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.