Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011;6(11):e26828.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026828. Epub 2011 Nov 2.

Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results

Affiliations

Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results

Jelte M Wicherts et al. PLoS One. 2011.

Abstract

Background: The widespread reluctance to share published research data is often hypothesized to be due to the authors' fear that reanalysis may expose errors in their work or may produce conclusions that contradict their own. However, these hypotheses have not previously been studied systematically.

Methods and findings: We related the reluctance to share research data for reanalysis to 1148 statistically significant results reported in 49 papers published in two major psychology journals. We found the reluctance to share data to be associated with weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect) and a higher prevalence of apparent errors in the reporting of statistical results. The unwillingness to share data was particularly clear when reporting errors had a bearing on statistical significance.

Conclusions: Our findings on the basis of psychological papers suggest that statistical results are particularly hard to verify when reanalysis is more likely to lead to contrasting conclusions. This highlights the importance of establishing mandatory data archiving policies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of reporting errors per paper for papers from which data were shared and from which no data were shared.
Distribution of the number of errors in the reporting of p-values for 28 papers from which the data were not shared (left column) and 21 from which the data were shared (right column) for all misreporting errors (upper row), larger misreporting errors at the 2nd decimal (middle row), and misreporting errors that concerned statistical significance (p<.05; bottom row).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of p-values reported as being significant in papers from which data were shared or not.
Distribution of p-values reported as being significant (at p<.05) in 21 papers from which data were shared (N = 561; in black) and in 28 papers from which data were not shared (N = 587; in grey), showing that p-values often lie closer to the typical boundary of significance when data are not shared for reanalysis. Frequencies of reporting errors (as given above the bars) reflect higher error prevalence in papers from which no data were shared.

References

    1. Wolins L. Responsibility for raw data. American Psychologist. 1962;17:657–658.
    1. Murphy JR. Statistical errors in immunologic research. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2004;114:1259–1264. - PubMed
    1. Strasak AM, Zaman Q, Marinell G, Pfeiffer KP, Ulmer H. The use of statistics in medical research: A comparison of The New England Journal of Medicine and Nature Medicine. American Statistician. 2007;61:47–55.
    1. Garcia-Berthou E, Alcaraz C. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2004;4:13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barber TX. Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. New York: Pergamon Press; 1976.

Publication types