The citation advantage of linking publications to research data (1907.02565v3)

Abstract: Efforts to make research results open and reproducible are increasingly reflected by journal policies encouraging or mandating authors to provide data availability statements. As a consequence of this, there has been a strong uptake of data availability statements in recent literature. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what proportion of these statements actually contain well-formed links to data, for example via a URL or permanent identifier, and if there is an added value in providing such links. We consider 531,889 journal articles published by PLOS and BMC, develop an automatic system for labelling their data availability statements according to four categories based on their content and the type of data availability they display, and finally analyze the citation advantage of different statement categories via regression. We find that, following mandated publisher policies, data availability statements become very common. In 2018 93.7% of 21,793 PLOS articles and 88.2% of 31,956 BMC articles had data availability statements. Data availability statements containing a link to data in a repository -- rather than being available on request or included as supporting information files -- are a fraction of the total. In 2017 and 2018, 20.8% of PLOS publications and 12.2% of BMC publications provided DAS containing a link to data in a repository. We also find an association between articles that include statements that link to data in a repository and up to 25.36% ($\pm$~1.07%) higher citation impact on average, using a citation prediction model. We discuss the potential implications of these results for authors (researchers) and journal publishers who make the effort of sharing their data in repositories. All our data and code are made available in order to reproduce and extend our results.

• The paper shows that publications linking to research data via DAS can receive up to 25.36% more citations.
• A large-scale analysis of PLOS and BMC articles reveals high adoption of DAS, with over 88% inclusion rates post-mandate.
• The study presents an automated DAS classification system that aids in efficiently analyzing data sharing practices.

The Citation Advantage of Linking Publications to Research Data: An Analysis of Data Availability Statements

The paper presented by Colavizza et al. focuses on the implications and benefits of Data Availability Statements (DAS) in the context of scholarly publishing. Specifically, it evaluates the prevalence of DAS in academic articles and their impact on citation counts, which serve as a proxy for the academic influence and reusability of the research. This research leverages a large-scale analysis of open access journal articles from PLOS and BMC, which are prominent publishers known for their early adoption of open science practices.

Key Findings

1. Prevalence of DAS: The paper observes that DAS have become increasingly common following the mandate by journals and publishers. By 2018, 93.7% of PLOS articles and 88.2% of BMC articles included a DAS. Yet, DAS with explicit links to data repositories are still a minority (20.8% for PLOS and 12.2% for BMC).
2. Impact on Citations: The analysis reveals that articles with DAS linking to public repositories (category 3 DAS) tend to have a higher citation impact — up to 25.36% increased citation rate on average compared to articles without such links. This is a significant finding, suggesting a correlation between the accessibility of research data and the academic recognition of the corresponding publications.
3. Automatic Classification of DAS: The authors developed a system to automatically classify DAS, which is a novel contribution, facilitating large-scale text analysis over the dataset. The classification identifies four types of DAS based on data availability and linking practices.

Implications and Future Directions

The implications of these findings are multifaceted:

• For Authors and Researchers: The positive correlation between DAS with repository links and citation counts highlights the potential benefits of making research data openly accessible. This serves as an incentive for researchers to engage in transparent data sharing practices, potentially increasing the visibility and impact of their work.
• For Publishers and Funding Agencies: The inclusion of DAS and the enforcement of data sharing mandates can enhance the overall transparency and reproducibility of research outputs. However, the paper suggests that encouraged policies may not be as effective as mandated ones in increasing the prevalence of DAS.
• For Open Science Practices: The results contribute to the body of evidence supporting open science initiatives. DAS not only promote transparency but also bolster the discoverability and reuse of scientific data, which in turn supports a more collaborative research ecosystem.

In future research, it would be beneficial to explore whether similar patterns hold across other disciplines and publishers beyond PLOS and BMC. Additionally, a granular analysis of DAS content could reveal more about community-specific data sharing practices and compliance with mandates. Moreover, investigating the potential causal relationships between the provision of repository links and increased citations could further elucidate the observed correlations.

Conclusion

Colavizza et al.'s work provides robust evidence of the citation advantage conferred by linking publications to open research data, advancing our understanding of the value of DAS in scholarly communication. This paper not only highlights the growing adoption of open science practices but also quantifies the academic benefits associated with these practices, thereby encouraging further community efforts towards data openness and transparency.