Feature


From clarity to confusion, Rebecca Pool looks at the highs and lows of data sharing in scholarly publishing


In September Springer Nature announced that all research papers accepted for publication in Nature and its additional titles must include a data-availability statement, detailing whether and how underlying data is accessible. At a minimum, authors should confirm


relevant data is available on request, but can also provide detail on publicly archived datasets, and even cite datasets assigned a digital object identifier. The move follows a trial across


five Nature journals, Cell Biology, Communications, Geoscience, Neuroscience and Physics. And as Andrea Taroni, chief editor of Nature Physics, puts it: ‘You might say it’s actually long overdue’. ‘It’s now clear that research is


increasingly relying on very, very large datasets, and in Nature Physics we’re seeing a disconnect between the narrative contained in an article and the sheer amount of data, analysis and interpretation required to understand the paper,’ he says. ‘So I see this as a small step to encouraging scientists to present data, as part of an overall package of scientific information that also includes the paper.’ The Nature titles are hardly alone in this


pursuit of data sharing; Springer Nature has delivered four different data sharing policies that its vast fleet of journals can pick and choose from. An initial light- touch policy encourages data deposition in a repository, while the fourth, more demanding policy requires data deposition for every paper, as well as peer reviewer access to data. In the wider world of publishing, much change has also been afoot. For example, Wiley ensures data relevant to a paper from its journals can be made accessible to readers via archiving in a Figshare


www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo


repository. Meanwhile, Elsevier’s authors can store and share research data as part of the publisher’s online article submission system, as well as upload data to Mendeley Data and link this to an article on Science Direct. Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, head of data publishing, open research at Springer Nature, is spearheading the organisation’s data sharing developments. As he highlights, in the few months that have followed the recent policies, more than 500 journals have adopted a standard policy, including the Nature and BioMedCentral titles. But with more than 2,000 journals, as


well as other publications in tow, it’s clear data sharing at the company is a long-


term project. ‘We realise we can’t try and solve every issue for every type of journal and data at once,’ says Hrynaszkiewicz. ‘For example, society-owned journals may need different communication strategies and timescales to discuss policy changes, and we will be adapting our approaches for books and proceedings in due course.’ But so far, the rollout of data sharing at Springer Nature is working. Hrynaszkiewicz reckons authors appreciate what he describes as ‘our pragmatic and practical approach’. And as he adds: ‘We don’t assume one size will fit all in a particular discipline. Where editors wish to introduce stronger policies, we provide tools and support for this.’ Likewise, Taroni notes how his own


Nature Physics authors are adopting the policies with relative ease. ‘I think [researchers] started off thinking “OK, [the journal] is paying lip-service to data availability, let’s do the bare minimum and include a statement saying we’ll make the data available if somebody asks”,’ he says. ‘But now we are receiving papers with


data availability statements already written,’ he adds. ‘It’s as if authors are saying “I want to make sure I write a good g


Who’s ahead of the game?


Clearly not all research is the same and, as such, academics from different disciplines are reacting to the rise of data sharing differently. According to Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, many life science titles already have some form of data policy, so these Nature Springer journals have been quick to adopt latest policy. ‘That said, journals


across physical sciences, engineers, humanities and social sciences have adopted the policies too,’ he says. ‘In economics, for example, there are


communities that have strong cultures of data- sharing policies in their journals.’ Andrea Taroni from


Nature Physics concurs: ‘We’ve recognised culture differences between disciplines; climate scientists may spend years collecting samples of data and are reluctant to freely give it away without any credit. But in fields, data is cheaper to collect, and these disciplines are already more advanced in this data sharing.’ Taroni also says that


researchers using large- scale experimental facilities, such as synchrotrons, have been among the first to volunteer data availability statements. He now hopes more of the same will follow in other fields of physics in the coming year. ‘I’m confident we will see this thrive as a practice in physics.’ he says. ‘And as scientists start to think about how they want to structure and present their data, we as publishers need to provide a clear framework to help them to achieve this and satisfy our policy.’


December 2016/January 2017 Research Information 9


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32