Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19301 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917353939271680 |
|---|---|
| author | Hörmann, Lukas Myneni, Hemanadhan Al-Hamd, Rwayda Kh. S. Batalović, Katarina Bonfanti, Silvia Grasselli, Federico Gražulis, Saulius Koç, Bahattin Konstantinou, Konstantinos Lončarić, Ivor Lopanitsyna, Nataliya Oliveira, José Manuel Pegolo, Paolo Ramos, Patrícia Rossi, Kevin Schwaminger, Sebastian P. Simmen, Edith Todorović, Milica Stricker, Markus Schmidt, Jonathan |
| author_facet | Hörmann, Lukas Myneni, Hemanadhan Al-Hamd, Rwayda Kh. S. Batalović, Katarina Bonfanti, Silvia Grasselli, Federico Gražulis, Saulius Koç, Bahattin Konstantinou, Konstantinos Lončarić, Ivor Lopanitsyna, Nataliya Oliveira, José Manuel Pegolo, Paolo Ramos, Patrícia Rossi, Kevin Schwaminger, Sebastian P. Simmen, Edith Todorović, Milica Stricker, Markus Schmidt, Jonathan |
| contents | Open and reproducible research in materials science relies on the availability of data, code, and common metadata standards. Journal research data policies (RDPs) remain a primary mechanism by which publication norms are defined and enforced. We survey RDPs for 171 materials science journals spanning 17 publishers, using an expanded coding framework that captures both data-and-code sharing behavior as well as refereeing standards. We find clear signs of progress in comparison to earlier research on RDPs: nearly all journals provide an RDP, and most mention data availability statements. However, enforceable requirements remain uncommon, public deposition of underlying data is rarely mandatory, and FAIR publication is typically encouraged rather than required. Expectations for research software are substantially less developed than those for data, with limited attention to versioning and persistent identifiers, dependency disclosure, reproducible execution environments, or software quality practices. Aggregating the findings on policy features into an open research data score reveals pronounced heterogeneity across journals. Neither impact factor nor access model reliably predicts policy strength. Double-coding further shows that more complex policies and stricter policies can be more challenging to interpret consistently, and we highlight challenges in consistent RDP encoding across studies. Lastly, we conclude with recommended best practice directions for the future. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_19301 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Journal Research Data Policies in Materials Science Hörmann, Lukas Myneni, Hemanadhan Al-Hamd, Rwayda Kh. S. Batalović, Katarina Bonfanti, Silvia Grasselli, Federico Gražulis, Saulius Koç, Bahattin Konstantinou, Konstantinos Lončarić, Ivor Lopanitsyna, Nataliya Oliveira, José Manuel Pegolo, Paolo Ramos, Patrícia Rossi, Kevin Schwaminger, Sebastian P. Simmen, Edith Todorović, Milica Stricker, Markus Schmidt, Jonathan Digital Libraries Open and reproducible research in materials science relies on the availability of data, code, and common metadata standards. Journal research data policies (RDPs) remain a primary mechanism by which publication norms are defined and enforced. We survey RDPs for 171 materials science journals spanning 17 publishers, using an expanded coding framework that captures both data-and-code sharing behavior as well as refereeing standards. We find clear signs of progress in comparison to earlier research on RDPs: nearly all journals provide an RDP, and most mention data availability statements. However, enforceable requirements remain uncommon, public deposition of underlying data is rarely mandatory, and FAIR publication is typically encouraged rather than required. Expectations for research software are substantially less developed than those for data, with limited attention to versioning and persistent identifiers, dependency disclosure, reproducible execution environments, or software quality practices. Aggregating the findings on policy features into an open research data score reveals pronounced heterogeneity across journals. Neither impact factor nor access model reliably predicts policy strength. Double-coding further shows that more complex policies and stricter policies can be more challenging to interpret consistently, and we highlight challenges in consistent RDP encoding across studies. Lastly, we conclude with recommended best practice directions for the future. |
| title | Journal Research Data Policies in Materials Science |
| topic | Digital Libraries |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19301 |