Pei Yifei, Gilliam Mayla, Listrom Olivia, Bermudez Andrea, Kenny Alexander, de Bruin Marijn, Noar Seth M, Goldstein Adam O, Sheeran Paschal
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States.
Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, IQ Health, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ann Behav Med. 2025 Jan 4;59(1). doi: 10.1093/abm/kaaf029.
Little research has examined rates or correlates of adherence to Open Science practices such as data sharing. We investigated how often researchers share data for inclusion in a meta-analysis and their reasons for not sharing data, and tested factors that could be associated with data sharing.
We requested data for 189 studies (167 authors) as part of a National Cancer Institute-funded meta-analysis of quit intentions and smoking cessation. Authors were contacted via email up to 4 times. We tracked responses, reasons for not sharing data, and coded 23 features of the author team (eg, number of authors and h-index), the request (eg, amount of information requested), and the study (eg, year of publication and preregistration).
Thirty-five percent of authors provided the requested data, 21% responded but did not provide data, and 44% never responded to our request. Of the 37 reasons offered for not sharing data, the most common were loss of access to data (76%) and lack of time (11%). More recent trials, fewer citations, publication in medical (vs. behavioral) journals, and study preregistration were each associated with providing the requested data (Ps < .05).
Contacting authors for unpublished data resulted in a moderate response rate (56%) and modest provision of data (35%). Barriers to data sharing such as access and time constraints highlight challenges faced by behavioral health researchers in promoting transparency. The factors associated with responsiveness underscore the importance of journal policies and Open Science practices in enhancing data sharing.
很少有研究调查对诸如数据共享等开放科学实践的依从率或相关因素。我们调查了研究人员将数据用于纳入荟萃分析的频率及其不共享数据的原因，并测试了可能与数据共享相关的因素。
作为美国国立癌症研究所资助的戒烟意愿和戒烟荟萃分析的一部分，我们索要了189项研究（167位作者）的数据。通过电子邮件与作者联系多达4次。我们跟踪了回复情况、不共享数据的原因，并对作者团队的23个特征（如作者数量和h指数）、索要内容（如索要的信息量）以及研究（如发表年份和预注册情况）进行了编码。
35%的作者提供了索要的数据，21%回复但未提供数据，44%从未回复我们的请求。在提供的37条不共享数据的原因中，最常见的是无法获取数据（76%）和缺乏时间（11%）。更新的试验、更少的引用次数、发表在医学（而非行为学）期刊上以及研究预注册情况均与提供索要的数据相关（P < 0.05）。
联系作者索要未发表的数据，得到了中等的回复率（56%）和适度的数据提供率（35%）。诸如获取数据和时间限制等数据共享障碍凸显了行为健康研究人员在促进透明度方面面临的挑战。与回复率相关的因素强调了期刊政策和开放科学实践在加强数据共享方面的重要性。
