Dashboard

The Research Data Year regularly reports on progress on number of participating publishers, journal data policies implementation, and occurrence of data availability statements in articles. See below the dashboard for Q2 of 2020

Number of publishers participating: 17

A total of 5 new publishers and societies joined the Research Data Year in Q2, making the total number 17. The participating publishers are Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, Elsevier, Emerald, IoPP, Karger, ACS, Oxford University Press, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, AGU, The Optical Society, AAAS, JAMA Network, and The New England Journal of Medicine.

Number of participating journals: 12,128

The participating journals (the total number of journals published by the participating publishers) grew to 12,206 in Q2.
Source data: information supplied by publishers.

Publishers that connect to Scholix: 35%

35% of participating journals collect data citation information and submit this Crossref according to the Scholix framework. This ensures that links between published articles and research data are established and various APIs will be able to extract information and provide further aggregation services.. For more information click here.
Source data: information supplied by publishers.

Journals with Data Policies: 61%

The percentage of journals that have data policies implemented increased from 58% to 61% in Q2. For more information on the type of data policies policies, click here.
Source data: information supplied by publishers.

Average percentage of journals per publisher that have a data policy: 64%

The average percentage of journals per publisher that have a data policy implemented is 64%. The increase from 35% is caused by new publishers joining with a high level of implementation of data policies. Source data: information supplied by publishers.

Percentage of articles that contain a Data Availability Statement: 8%

The total percentage presented is a weighted average across the publishers. The lower percentage of Q2 compared to Q1 is probably caused by variations in the selected journals for the analysis.
Source data: percentages are supplied by publisher based on their own data, or based on an analysis of a statistically significant sample of articles published from publishers by Ripeta.