- Published
- Updated
A manuscript data-availability statement should describe a real route for appropriate requests. A broad promise of open sharing may be misleading when the available permissions, record arrangements or technical preparation cannot support what the text appears to offer.
The publication decision
Clarify shareable scope, decision authority and request handling with responsible parties. Participant-level data, summary tables and analysis code may have different conditions. Compare journal expectations with the study’s actual arrangements rather than ignoring consent or privacy limitations. Plan who receives requests and how that contact route continues when project personnel change.
Worked example
For example, a draft promises all data on request, while agreements and consent arrangements support only a defined subset. Authors and data owners assess an actual sharing route and prepare an accurate description. Files are not distributed by email before an appropriate decision. The statement is not treated merely as text needed to complete a journal form.
Coordination checks
- Compare the promised scope with actual permissions and readiness.
- Define the request decision owner and continuing contact route.
- Assess summary data, individual data and code sharing separately.
Acceptance and boundaries
Acceptance means the published statement is truthful, realistic and actionable. This article does not determine the legal suitability of a particular request; authorised privacy and contractual assessments remain necessary. Automatic approval of every request is not implied. If access is restricted, explain conditions, provide an understandable route and retain the rationale supporting the statement.
Frequently asked questions
- Is data available on request enough?
- Not alone. The scope, assessment process and contact route should actually be workable.
- Are summary tables and individual data equivalent?
- No. Their content and potential for identification can lead to different sharing conditions.