Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.

Despite the increase in the number of journals issuing data policies requiring authors to make data underlying reporting findings publicly available, authors do not always do so, and when they do, the data do not always meet standards of quality that allow others to verify or extend published result...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Thu-Mai Christian, Amanda Gooch, Todd Vision, Elizabeth Hull
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230281
id doaj-c6ca26ac47124cbdbf79de7cc11c5ad0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c6ca26ac47124cbdbf79de7cc11c5ad02021-03-03T21:36:02ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01153e023028110.1371/journal.pone.0230281Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.Thu-Mai ChristianAmanda GoochTodd VisionElizabeth HullDespite the increase in the number of journals issuing data policies requiring authors to make data underlying reporting findings publicly available, authors do not always do so, and when they do, the data do not always meet standards of quality that allow others to verify or extend published results. This phenomenon suggests the need to consider the effectiveness of journal data policies to present and articulate transparency requirements, and how well they facilitate (or hinder) authors' ability to produce and provide access to data, code, and associated materials that meet quality standards for computational reproducibility. This article describes the results of a research study that examined the ability of journal-based data policies to: 1) effectively communicate transparency requirements to authors, and 2) enable authors to successfully meet policy requirements. To do this, we conducted a mixed-methods study that examined individual data policies alongside editors' and authors' interpretation of policy requirements to answer the following research questions. Survey responses from authors and editors along with results from a content analysis of data policies found discrepancies among editors' assertion of data policy requirements, authors' understanding of policy requirements, and the requirements stated in the policy language as written. We offer explanations for these discrepancies and offer recommendations for improving authors' understanding of policies and increasing the likelihood of policy compliance.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230281
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Thu-Mai Christian
Amanda Gooch
Todd Vision
Elizabeth Hull
spellingShingle Thu-Mai Christian
Amanda Gooch
Todd Vision
Elizabeth Hull
Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Thu-Mai Christian
Amanda Gooch
Todd Vision
Elizabeth Hull
author_sort Thu-Mai Christian
title Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
title_short Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
title_full Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
title_fullStr Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
title_full_unstemmed Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
title_sort journal data policies: exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Despite the increase in the number of journals issuing data policies requiring authors to make data underlying reporting findings publicly available, authors do not always do so, and when they do, the data do not always meet standards of quality that allow others to verify or extend published results. This phenomenon suggests the need to consider the effectiveness of journal data policies to present and articulate transparency requirements, and how well they facilitate (or hinder) authors' ability to produce and provide access to data, code, and associated materials that meet quality standards for computational reproducibility. This article describes the results of a research study that examined the ability of journal-based data policies to: 1) effectively communicate transparency requirements to authors, and 2) enable authors to successfully meet policy requirements. To do this, we conducted a mixed-methods study that examined individual data policies alongside editors' and authors' interpretation of policy requirements to answer the following research questions. Survey responses from authors and editors along with results from a content analysis of data policies found discrepancies among editors' assertion of data policy requirements, authors' understanding of policy requirements, and the requirements stated in the policy language as written. We offer explanations for these discrepancies and offer recommendations for improving authors' understanding of policies and increasing the likelihood of policy compliance.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230281
work_keys_str_mv AT thumaichristian journaldatapoliciesexploringhowtheunderstandingofeditorsandauthorscorrespondstothepoliciesthemselves
AT amandagooch journaldatapoliciesexploringhowtheunderstandingofeditorsandauthorscorrespondstothepoliciesthemselves
AT toddvision journaldatapoliciesexploringhowtheunderstandingofeditorsandauthorscorrespondstothepoliciesthemselves
AT elizabethhull journaldatapoliciesexploringhowtheunderstandingofeditorsandauthorscorrespondstothepoliciesthemselves
_version_ 1714816179317506048