Data is not available upon request
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2023.4008Keywords:
data sharing, data availability statement, implicit relational assessment procedure, implicit social cognitionAbstract
Many journals now require data sharing and require articles to include a Data Availability Statement. However, several studies over the past two decades have shown that promissory notes about data sharing are rarely abided by and that data is generally not available upon request. This has negative consequences for many essential aspects of scientific knowledge production, including independent verification of results, efficient secondary use of data, and knowledge synthesis. I assessed the prevalence of data sharing upon request in articles employing the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure published within the last 5 years. Of 52 articles, 42% contained a Data Availability Statement, most of which stated that data was available upon request. This rose from 0% in 2018 to 100% in 2022, indicating a change in journals’ policies. However, only 27% of articles’ authors actually shared data. Among articles stating that data was available upon request, only 17% shared data upon request. The presence of Data Availability Statements was not associated with higher rates of data sharing (p = .55), indicating a lack of adherence with journals’ policies. Results replicate those found elsewhere: data is generally not available upon request, and promissory Data Availability Statements are typically not adhered to. Issues, causes, and implications are considered.
Metrics
References
American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct [Publisher: APA]. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Crüwell, S., Apthorp, D., Baker, B. J., Colling, L., Elson, M., Geiger, S. J., Lobentanzer, S., Monéger, J., Patterson, A., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Zaneva, M., & Brown, N. J. L. (2023). What’s in a Badge? A Computational Reproducibility In-vestigation of the Open Data Badge Policy in One Issue of Psychological Science [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Psychological Science, 34(4), 512–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221140828
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. (2022). Berufsethische Richtlinien. https://www.dgps.de/die- dgps/aufgaben- und- ziele/berufsethische-richtlinien/
European Commission. (2023). The EU’s open science policy. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en
Evans, T. R. (2022). Developments in Open Data Norms [Number: 1 Publisher: Ubiquity Press], 10(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.60
Frontiers. (2023). Policies and publication ethics. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.frontiersin.org/guidelines/policies-and-publication-ethics
Gilmore, R. O., Kennedy, J. L., & Adolph, K. E. (2018). Practical Solutions for Sharing Data and Materials From Psychological Research. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10 .1177/2515245917746500
Google Trends. (2023). Comparison of the relative frequency of usage of "data is" vs. "data are". Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://trends. google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=data%20is,data%20are&hl=en-GB
Hallinan, D., Boehm, F., Külpmann, A., & Elson, M. (2023). Information Provision for Informed Consent Procedures in Psychological Research Under the General Data Protection Regulation: A Practical Guide [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1), 25152459231151944. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231151944
Hamilton, D. G., Hong, K., Fraser, H., Rowhani-Farid, A., Fidler, F., & Page, M. J. (2023). Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data [Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Research]. BMJ, 382, e075767. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075767
Hardwicke, T. E., Mathur, M. B., MacDonald, K., Nilsonne, G., Banks, G. C., Kidwell, M. C., Hofelich Mohr, A., Clayton, E., Yoon, E. J., Henry Tessler, M., Lenne, R. L., Altman, S., Long, B., & Frank, M. C. (2018). Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: Evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition [Publisher: Royal Society]. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 180448. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180448
Horstmann, K. T., Arslan, R. C., & Greiff, S. (2020). Generating Codebooks to Ensure the Independent Use of Research Data [Publisher: Hogrefe Publishing]. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(5), 721–729. https://doi.org/10/ghmt9r
Hussey, I. (2022). Reply to Barnes-Holmes & Harte (2022) “The IRAP as a Measure of Implicit Cognition: A Case of Frankenstein’s Monster”. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qmg6s
Hussey, I. (2023). A systematic review of null hypothesis significance testing, sample sizes, and statistical power in research using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 29, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.06.008
Hussey, I., & Drake, C. E. (2020). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure demonstrates poor internal consistency and test-retest reliability: A meta-analysis [Publisher: PsyArXiv]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ge3k7
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. (2023). Authors Guidelines. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.ijpsy.com/normas.html
Lear, M. K., Spata, A., Tittler, M., Fishbein, J. N., Arch, J. J., & Luoma, J. B. (2023). Transparency and reproducibility in the journal of contextual behavioral science: An audit study. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 28, 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.03.017
Meyer, M. N. (2018). Practical Tips for Ethical Data Sharing [Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc]. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747656
Minocher, R., Atmaca, S., Bavero, C., McElreath, R., & Beheim, B. (2021). Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018 [Publisher: Royal Society]. Royal Society Open Science, 8(9), 210450. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210450
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nunes, L. (2021). Data Sharing for Greater Scientific Transparency. APS Observer, 34. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/data-sharing-methods
Oates, J., Carpenter, D., Fisher, M., Goodson, S., Hannah, B., Kwiatkowski, R., Prutton, K., Reeves, D., & Wainwright, T. (2021). BPS Code of Human Research Ethics [Pages: bp-srep.2021.inf180]. British Psychological Society. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsrep.2021.inf180
Rogers, S. (2012). Data are or data is? The Guardian. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular
Soderberg, C. K. (2018). Using OSF to share data: A step-by-step guide [Place: US Publisher: Sage Publications]. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918757689
Task Force on the Strategies and Tactics of Contextual Behavioral Science Research. (2021). Adoption of Open Science Recommendations | Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://contextualscience.org/news/adoption_of_open_science_recommendations
Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K., Eenmaa, H., Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., Raju, M., Astapova, A., Lukner, H., Kogermann, K., & Sepp, T. (2021). Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific dis-ciplines [Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group]. Scientific Data, 8(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00981-0
The Psychological Record. (2023). Instructions for Authors. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from https://www.springer.com/ journal/40732/submission-guidelines
Villum, C. (2014). “Open-washing” – The difference between opening your data and simply making them available – Open Knowledge Foundation blog. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://blog.okfn.org/2014/03/10/open-washing-the-difference-between-opening-your-data-and-simply-making-them-available/
Vines, T. H., Albert, A. Y., Andrew, R. L., Débarre, F., Bock, D. G., Franklin, M. T., Gilbert, K. J., Moore, J.-S., Renaut, S., & Rennison, D. J. (2014). The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age. Current Biology, 24(1), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61(7), 726–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726
Wolins, L. (1962). Responsibility for Raw Data [Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association]. American Psychologist, 17(9), 657–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038819
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ian Hussey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
