Responses to data request, overall (Panel A) and broken down by field (Panel B) and sample time period (Panel C).

<p>Responses to data request, overall (Panel A) and broken down by field (Panel B) and sample time period (Panel C).</p

Reasons provided by researchers for not sharing.

<p>X-axes represent counts and percentages (of n = 32 who responded that they would not share).</p

Statistical guidance to authors at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines

Scientific journals may counter the misuse, misreporting, and misinterpretation of statistics by providing guidance to authors. We described the nature and prevalence of statistical guidance at 15 journals (top-ranked by Impact Factor) in each of 22 scientific disciplines across five high-level domains (N = 330 journals). The frequency of statistical guidance varied across domains (Health & Life Sciences: 122/165 journals, 74%; Multidisciplinary: 9/15 journals, 60%; Social Sciences: 8/30 journals, 27%; Physical Sciences: 21/90 journals, 23%; Formal Sciences: 0/30 journals, 0%). In one discipline (Clinical Medicine), statistical guidance was provided by all examined journals and in two disciplines (Mathematics and Computer Science) no examined journals provided statistical guidance. Of the 160 journals providing statistical guidance, 93 had a dedicated statistics section in their author instructions. The most frequently mentioned topics were confidence intervals (90 journals) and p-values (88 journals). For six ‘hotly debated’ topics (statistical significance, p-values, Bayesian statistics, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and sample size planning/justification) journals typically offered implicit or explicit endorsement and rarely provided opposition. The heterogeneity of statistical guidance provided by top-ranked journals within and between disciplines highlights a need for further research and debate about the role journals can play in improving statistical practice.</p

Actually available, correct, usable, and complete materials.

<p>Percentage of articles with materials reported available at an independent archive or personal website that were actually available, had correct materials, had usable materials, and had complete materials. Once <i>Psychological Science</i> started offering badges, some articles reported availability but did not earn a badge, and others reported availability and did earn a badge. These are represented separately. Total number of articles reported in data points. Underlying data (<a href="https://osf.io/8ds2g/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/8ds2g/</a>) and scripts (<a href="https://osf.io/f7kqr/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/f7kqr/</a>) to reproduce this figure are available on the Open Science Framework.</p

Reportedly available materials.

<p>Percentage of articles reporting open materials by half year by journal. Darker line indicates <i>Psychological Science</i>, and dotted red line indicates when badges were introduced in <i>Psychological Science</i> and none of the comparison journals. Underlying data (<a href="https://osf.io/a29bt/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/a29bt/</a>) and scripts (<a href="https://osf.io/bdtnq/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/bdtnq/</a>) to reproduce this figure are available on the Open Science Framework.</p

Article coding scheme.

<p>A visual illustration of the full coding scheme used to evaluate the availability of data and materials. This figure is available for download on the Open Science Framework at <a href="https://osf.io/kjsxv/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/kjsxv/</a>.</p

Actually available, correct, usable, and complete data.

<p>Percentage of articles with data reported available at an independent archive or personal website that were actually available, had correct data, had usable data, and had complete data. Once <i>Psychological Science</i> started offering badges, some articles reported availability but either did not apply for or earn a badge; others reported availability and did earn a badge. These are represented separately. Total number of articles reported in data points. Underlying data (<a href="https://osf.io/srgjb/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/srgjb/</a>) and scripts (<a href="https://osf.io/d78cf/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/d78cf/</a>) to reproduce this figure are available on the Open Science Framework.</p

Reportedly available data.

<p>Percentage of articles reporting open data by half year by journal. Darker line indicates <i>Psychological Science</i>, and dotted red line indicates when badges were introduced in <i>Psychological Science</i> and none of the comparison journals. Underlying data (<a href="https://osf.io/a29bt/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/a29bt/</a>) and scripts (<a href="https://osf.io/bdtnq/" target="_blank">https://osf.io/bdtnq/</a>) to reproduce this figure can be found on the Open Science Framework.</p

Supplementary materials from Data availability, reusability and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition

Additional methodogical information, analyses, and result