Guide
Research Data Sharing Policies
Research data sharing policies from major funders and publishers require researchers to make underlying data available, with NIH, Wellcome Trust, Horizon Europe, UKRI and most major journals now mandating data availability statements and repository deposit.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Funder data sharing mandates
The NIH 2023 Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy requires that all research funded by NIH that generates scientific data submit a DMS plan and, upon completion, share data in a repository. The Wellcome Trust requires open access to data supporting publications and expects researchers to use established repositories. UKRI (covering all UK Research Councils) requires open access to research data and a data management plan. Horizon Europe requires DMPs and that data be deposited in a repository meeting FAIR principles; the default is open access with exceptions permitted for confidentiality, commercial sensitivity or legal reasons. The Australian Research Council similarly requires data retention and, where practical, open access. These mandates have driven a significant increase in repository usage and data availability statements accompanying journal articles.
Publisher policies and open data badges
Journal and publisher policies vary from encouragement to requirement. Many publishers require a data availability statement — a brief note at the end of an article specifying where underlying data can be found, or justifying why it cannot be shared. The Center for Open Science administers open data badges recognising articles that share data openly; COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) provides guidance on research data policies for publishers. Registered Reports, a publication format pre-registering a study before results are known, often pair with strong data sharing commitments. Prominent journals including those in the Nature Portfolio, PLOS, eLife and BMJ group require data availability statements and many mandate repository deposit.
Managing sensitive and restricted data
Not all research data can be fully open. Data involving human participants may require ethical approval to share and often must be anonymised or pseudonymised before deposit. For data that cannot be made public, controlled-access mechanisms include: data access committees (DACs) that evaluate requests from researchers wishing to use sensitive data (as used for genomic data in dbGaP and the European Genome-phenome Archive); data-sharing agreements (DSAs) setting terms for specific reuse; and managed enclaves that allow analysis without data leaving a secure environment. GDPR requires careful handling of personal data related to EU residents. The principle accepted across funders is "as open as possible, as closed as necessary".
Key facts
At a glance
- NIH 2023 DMS Policy: data management and sharing plan required for all funded research generating scientific data
- Wellcome Trust: open access to data supporting publications
- Horizon Europe: FAIR data deposit required; open unless restricted
- Publisher requirement: data availability statement required by Nature Portfolio, PLOS, eLife and others
- Open Data Badge: administered by Center for Open Science; recognises open data in articles
- Sensitive data: managed via data access committees (DACs), data-sharing agreements or secure enclaves
- GDPR: applies to personal data of EU residents; anonymisation/pseudonymisation required
- Principle: "as open as possible, as closed as necessary"
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: Data sharing policies only apply to clinical or genomic research.
Actually: Major funders apply data sharing requirements across all research that generates scientific data, including social sciences, humanities, environmental sciences and computational research. The type of data affects how it can be shared, but the obligation to plan and share where possible is broad.
Often heard: A data availability statement that says "data available on reasonable request" satisfies funder requirements.
Actually: Funders increasingly reject "available on request" as insufficient because it is not verifiable or timely. NIH, Wellcome and Horizon Europe require deposit in an established repository with a persistent identifier, not a vague commitment to share on individual request.
Often heard: Sharing data before publication risks priority claims being undermined.
Actually: Embargo periods allow researchers to share data concurrently with or shortly after publication, protecting priority. Preprint posting (linking to a DOI for the data) and embargo-enabled repository deposit are standard mechanisms for managing timing.
Common questions
FAQ
What is a data availability statement?+
A data availability statement is a short section of a journal article specifying where the data underlying the findings can be accessed, under what conditions and with what identifier. Most publishers now require one. The statement should include a repository name, DOI or accession number, and any access conditions.
What is a data access committee?+
A data access committee (DAC) is a body that reviews and approves requests from researchers wishing to access controlled data — typically sensitive human genetic, clinical or social data. The DAC evaluates whether proposed uses are appropriate under the terms of the original consent and data policy before granting access.
Going deeper
