The Landscape of Open Data Policies

August 29th, 2018, David Mellor


Note: This post was updated on November 7, 2018 to reflect the changes recently implemented by Wiley, described here. The original version of this post can be found on the Wayback Machine

Better policies reflect better norms

Transparency is essential for scientific progress. Access to underlying data and materials allows us to make progress through new discoveries and to better evaluate reported findings, which increases trust in science. However, there are challenges to changing norms of scientific practice. Culture change is a slow process because of inertia and the fear of unintended consequences.

One barrier to change that we encounter as we advocate to journals for more data sharing is an editor's uncertainty about how their publisher will react to such a change. Will they help implement that policy? Will they discourage it because of uncertainty about how it might affect submission numbers or citation rates? With uncertainty, inaction seems to be easier.

One way for a publisher to overcome that barrier for individual journals is to establish data sharing policies that are available to all of their journals. That directly signals that the publisher will be ready to support editorial policy change. In fact, 2017-2018 saw most major publishers doing just that. This has resulted in a significant number of journals now having policies that can increase transparency. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provide guidance and template language to use in author instructions. Publishers that adopt TOP policies or their equivalent signal support for any of these actions.

Three Levels of Increasing Rigor

TOP includes eight policies for publishers or funders to use to increase transparency. They include data transparency, materials and code transparency, design and citation standards, preregistration, and replication policies. For simplicity, this post will focus just on the Data Transparency policy. TOP can be implemented in one of three levels of increasing rigor:

  • Level 1, Disclosure. Articles must state whether or not data underlying reported results are available and, if so, how to access them.

  • Level 2, Mandate. Article must share data underlying reported results in a trusted repository. If data cannot be shared for ethical or legal constraints, authors must state this and provide as much data as can be reasonably shared.

  • Level 3, Verify that shared data are reproducible. Shared data must be made available to a third party to verify that they can be used to replicate findings reported in the article.

Tiered Data Policies at Four Large Publishers

Similarly, publishers that create their own tiered data sharing policies make it clear to their community that these actions are all possible. These policies are fantastic tools for their editors and authors. By comparing the four policies here, we can see how they relate to one another, and discover areas of overlap or gap.

Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley have all recently adopted tiered data sharing policies that make improvements in supporting transparency easier for the journals that they publish. Each shares some characteristics and rely on similar tiers: from encouragement to share data to increasingly strong mandates to do so.

Policies that reflect the status quo (Not TOP compliant, i.e. "Level 0")

The first tier of policies at each publisher are all consistent with standard practice: an encouragement to share data or mandate that data be made available upon request. Importantly, TOP starts above this status quo. Such policies have been repeatedly demonstrated to be ineffective and are not compliant with TOP. Furthemore, fulfilling an expectation to share upon request is of course only possible if the data are preserved and if the author chooses to share. It is a mandate that is nearly impossible to enforce. This standard seems increasingly dated in a scientific community where even some of the oldest and most prestigious institutions are expecting Open Science to be the new normal.

These “Available upon request” policies are still the default expectation for many journals. The tiered data sharing policies provided by Elsevier (policy option A and B), Springer Nature (policy type 1 and 2), Taylor and Francis (Basic), and Wiley (Encourages) all start with this “Level 0” of the TOP Guidelines.  


  • * See discussion for how these policies that require peer review of data comply with TOP Level 2 
  • ** This policy does require a data availability statement.
  • *** This policy complies with Level 3 of TOP when it includes a data reproducibility check. 
  • For examples of journals that implement TOP Level 3, see here (update February 2020, TOP Factor is now the best way to see which journals implement Level 3 data transparency standards). 

Policies that require disclosure (TOP Level 1)

Moving beyond the status quo are requirements to disclose whether or not data are available and, if so, the state where. While this still leaves room for a data statement with “available upon request,” it does mandate an action: disclosure. Such policies are consistent with TOP’s Level 1. Elsevier’s Option C, Springer Nature’s Type 3, and Taylor and Francis’ "Share Upon Request" (which does also have a disclosure requirement) and Wiley's "Expects Data Sharing" fall into this category.

Some policies require data sharing for datasets in communities where norms already exist. For example, there is a strong culture of posting biomedical data such as protein and DNA sequences or proteomics data, and so requiring that simply reflects current expectations. For all other data underlying the results reported in an article there might be a disclosure requirement until norms within the community change. See Nature's policy for this type of approach.

Policies that require open data (TOP Level 2)

The heart of the TOP Guidelines is Level 2, which requires that data be made openly available in a repository as a condition of publication. Exceptions are permitted for legal or ethical constraints. TOP provides specific guidance and definitions on what “data” includes, and what to do when raw data cannot be made available.

Elsevier’s Option D and E*, Springer Nature’s Policy 4*, Taylor & Francis’ three open policies, and Wiley’s Mandate all comply with Level 2 of TOP. There are several points worth mentioning here. The first is the number of policies within the Taylor & Francis category. The Publicly Available policy permits data shared with licenses that limit some types of reuse. Their Open Data policy requires a license for reuse, and their FAIR policy requires adherence to standards maintained by FORCE11 that ensure that the shared data can be maximally discovered and reused. These three policies are great at clarifying expectations toward more FAIR data and I suspect that both TOP and the other publisher policies will take take inspiration from them.

The next point worth mentioning is that Springer Nature’s and Elsevier’s highest policies don’t quite meet TOP’s Level 3 requirements. This level of the TOP Guidelines is the most rigorous policy. This expects computational reproducibility of shared data and any relevant code that are used to reproduce the main findings and figures reported in the manuscript. This step takes time and resources but does the most to ensure credibility. This policy may be tough to implement, but we know of six journals that take this step. The American Journal of Political Science, in partnership with the Odum institute, takes these measure to ensure trust in the findings published in their journal.

These data peer review policies (Elsevier's Option E and Springer's Type 4) do, however, set good expectations. That peer review is an important and credible step. There are emerging standards for peer reviewing datasets, that are building on known practices in the field. Taking simple steps to verify that shared data are credible can increase trust. I suspect that more journals and reviewers will begin to take these actions as expectations rise for credibility and transparency in reported research.

These data peer review policies also suggest that there is room for growth within the existing TOP framework. This level of peer review clearly does not meet the level of computational reproducibility as specified in TOP Level 3, but also clearly is more than a mandate to merely share data. Verifying basic quality of shared data and giving guidance to reviewers for doing this can only improve expectations and I think should be fostered. If a new standard between TOP Level 2 and 3 would accomplish that goal, then I think it will be worth implementing.

Policies that verify data (TOP Level 3)

There is room for growth is within the four publisher policies. Only Wiley's highest policy includes a mention for computational reproducibility. Note that that Wiley policy includes a spectrum of options for peer reviewing data, only the most stringent of which complies with the criteria of TOP's highest standards. Other policies included in this review do not reach TOP Level 3 standards, which are currently being implemented by a several leaders in their fields that conduct computational reproducibility checks. While I do not expect that most journals will implement computational reproducibility policies in the near future, publishers can indicate principled support for such steps and should cover the actions that their journals are already conducting. Doing so will signal principled support for these steps. 

It’s time to increase expectations

What is also clear from these policies is that most journals now have a framework to require data transparency that has a stamp of approval from their publisher. In the past, the absence of this approval has stalled progress toward individual journals implementing better policy. There are hundreds of journals that satisfy Level 1 of the TOP Guidelines, and there is no reason that number shouldn’t grow significantly from among the thousands of journals that do not. Without these signals from journals, author expectations for data transparency are not likely to shift en mass. Our mission is to help implement such practices. If you need guidance, or want to vet policies of a journal you manage contact me at

Additional details of each policy can be found on each publisher's website. 


  • Option A: Research data deposit and citation
  • Option B: Research data deposit, citation and linking (or a Research Data Availability Statement)
  • Option C: Research Data deposit, citation and linking (or a Research Data Availability Statement)
  • Option D: Research Data deposit, citation and linking
  • Option E: Research Data deposit, citation and linking (or a Research Data Availability Statement); Research Data peer reviewed prior to publication

Springer Nature

  • Type 1: Data sharing and data citation is encouraged 
  • Type 2: Data sharing and evidence of data sharing encouraged
  • Type 3: Data sharing encouraged and statements of data availability required
  • Type 4: Data sharing, evidence of data sharing and peer review of data required

Taylor and Francis

  • Basic
  • Share upon reasonable request (which requires a data accessibility statement)
  • Publicly available
  • Open data
  • Open and fully FAIR


  • Encourages Data Sharing
  • Expects Data Sharing
  • Mandates Data Sharing

Updates and corrections:

  • We added clarification and nuance about policies that require some, but not all, data sharing in the "Policies that require disclosure (TOP Level 1)" section. 

Recent Blogs

The Content of Open Science

What Second Graders Can Teach Us About Open Science

What's Going on With Reproducibility?

Open Science and the Marketplace of Ideas

3 Things Societies Can Do to Promote Research Integrity

How to Manage and Share Your Open Data

Interview with Prereg Challenge Award Winner Dr. Allison Skinner

Next Steps for Promoting Transparency in Science

Public Goods Infrastructure for Preprints and Innovation in Scholarly Communication

A How-To Guide to Improving the Clarity and Continuity of Your Preregistration

Building a Central Service for Preprints

Three More Reasons to Take the Preregistration Challenge

The Center for Open Science is a Culture Change Technology Company

Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison

How can we improve diversity and inclusion in the open science movement?

OSF Fedora Integration, Aussie style!

Replicating a challenging study: it's all about sharing the details.

Some Examples of Publishing the Research That Actually Happened

How Preregistration Helped Improve Our Research: An Interview with Preregistration Challenge Awardees

Are reproducibility and open science starting to matter in tenure and promotion review?

The IRIS Replication Award and Collaboration in the Second Language Research Community

We Should Redefine Statistical Significance

Some Cool New OSF Features

How Open Source Research Tools Can Help Institutions Keep it Simple

OSF Add-ons Help You Maximize Research Data Storage and Accessibility

10 Tips for Making a Great Preregistration

Community-Driven Science: An Interview With EarthArXiv Founders Chris Jackson, Tom Narock and Bruce Caron

A Preregistration Coaching Network

Why are we working so hard to open up science? A personal story.

One Preregistration to Rule Them All?

Using the wiki just got better.

Transparent Definitions and Community Signals: Growth in the Open Science Community

We're Committed to GDPR. Here's How.

Preprints: The What, The Why, The How.

The Prereg Challenge Is Ending. What's Next?

We are Now Registering Preprint DOIs with Crossref

Using OSF in the Lab

Psychology's New Normal

How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv

The Landscape of Open Data Policies

Open Science is a Behavior.

Why pre-registration might be better for your career and well-being

Interview: Randy McCarthy discusses his experiences with publishing his first Registered Report

Towards minimal reporting standards for life scientists

Looking Back on the Prereg Challenge and Forward To More Credible Research

OSF: Origin, growth, and what’s next

A Critique of the Many Labs Projects

The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, A Preliminary Report

Strategy for Culture Change

New OSF Registries Enhancements Improve Efficiency and Quality of Registrations

Registered Reports and PhD’s – What? Why? How? An Interview with Chris Chambers

How to Collaborate with Industry Using Open Science

How to Build an Open Science Network in Your Community

Seven Reasons to Work Reproducibly

COS Collaborates with Case Medical Research to Support Free Video Publishing for Clinicians and Researchers

Advocating for Policy Improvements at Your Institution

Announcing a joint effort to improve research transparency: FAIRSharing and TOP Guidelines

OSF as a tool for managing course-embedded research projects

Journals test the Materials Design Analysis Reporting (MDAR) checklist

Now you can endorse papers on OSF Preprints with Plaudit

Many Labs 4: Failure to Replicate Mortality Salience Effect With and Without Original Author Involvement

Approach and vision for the OSF Preprint infrastructure

Conflict between Open Access and Open Science: APCs are a key part of the problem, preprints are a key part of the solution

Re-engineering Ethics Training: An Interview with Dena Plemmons and Erica Baranski

Answering Your Preregistration Questions

UBC leads the way as first Canadian institutional OSF member

2019 Recap: OSF Growth and Open Knowledge Exchange

Getting Started with OSF

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.