Meta-research studies should improve and evaluate their own data sharing practices

  • Ioana A. Cristea
    Corresponding author: Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Piazza Botta 11, 27100 Pavia, Italy. Tel.: +382986452; fax: +382 986272.
    Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Piazza Botta 11, 27100 Pavia, Italy

    IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy
    Search for articles by this author
  • Florian Naudet
    Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, CIC 1414 (Centre d’Investigation Clinique de Rennes), F-35000 Rennes, France
    Search for articles by this author
  • Laura Caquelin
    Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, CIC 1414 (Centre d’Investigation Clinique de Rennes), F-35000 Rennes, France
    Search for articles by this author


      Data sharing is gradually becoming a requirement across all fields of science, owing to its key benefits in verifying the reproducibility of findings and reusing existent data for new purposes. Although metaresearch studies are complex, time-consuming, and hinge on the availability of data produced and curated by others, there has been little focus on how they make their own data available. This is in stark contrast to the heightened attention data sharing has received in clinical research. Yet, as secondary data users par excellence, metaresearchers are ethically bound to both improving and evaluating data sharing practices and correctly sharing their own data. We contrast particularities of data sharing in metaresearch and clinical research, such as benefits, barriers, and inadequate and potentially pervasive sharing practices. We conclude with an array of concrete and tailored recommendations for improvement.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        Meta-research: why research on research matters.
        PLoS Biol. 2018; 16: e2005468
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • Fanelli D.
        • Dunne D.D.
        • Goodman S.N.
        Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices.
        PLoS Biol. 2015; 13: e1002264
        • Turner L.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Weeks L.
        • Peters J.
        • Kober T.
        • et al.
        Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11: Mr000030
        • Ross J.S.
        Clinical research data sharing: what an open science world means for researchers involved in evidence synthesis.
        Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 159
        • Naudet F.
        • Siebert M.
        • Pellen C.
        • Gaba J.
        • Axfors C.
        • Cristea I.
        • et al.
        Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing: ripe for improvement.
        PLoS Med. 2021; 18: e1003844
        • Bey N.
        • Boyd L.
        Researchers raise concerns of fraud and ambiguity in two studies authored by Dan Ariely, renowned Duke Researcher and Professor.
        The Chronicle, 2021 (Available at)
        • Berenbaum M.R.
        Retraction for Shu et al., Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118 (e2115397118)
        • Christensen G.
        • Dafoe A.
        • Miguel E.
        • Moore D.A.
        • Rose A.K.
        A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal policies as a natural experiment.
        PLoS One. 2019; 14: e0225883
        • Colavizza G.
        • Hrynaszkiewicz I.
        • Staden I.
        • Whitaker K.
        • McGillivray B.
        The citation advantage of linking publications to research data.
        PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0230416
        • Moher D.
        • Naudet F.
        • Cristea I.A.
        • Miedema F.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • Goodman S.N.
        Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.
        PLoS Biol. 2018; 16: e2004089
        • Munafò M.R.
        • Nosek B.A.
        • Bishop D.V.M.
        • Button K.S.
        • Chambers C.D.
        • Percie du Sert N.
        • et al.
        A manifesto for reproducible science.
        Nat Hum Behav. 2017; 1: 0021
        • Taichman D.B.
        • Sahni P.
        • Pinborg A.
        • Peiperl L.
        • Laine C.
        • James A.
        • et al.
        Data sharing statements for clinical trials: a requirement of the international committee of medical journal editors.
        Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167: 63-65
        • Rathi V.
        • Dzara K.
        • Gross C.P.
        • Hrynaszkiewicz I.
        • Joffe S.
        • Krumholz H.M.
        • et al.
        Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey.
        BMJ. 2012; 345: e7570
        • Hutchings E.
        • Loomes M.
        • Butow P.
        • Boyle F.M.
        A systematic literature review of researchers’ and healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.
        Syst Rev. 2020; 9: 240
        • de Vrieze J.
        The metawars.
        Science. 2018; 361: 1184-1188
        • Page M.J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Shamseer L.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Ahmadzai N.
        • Wolfe D.
        • et al.
        Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 94: 8-18
        • Maassen E.
        • van Assen M.A.L.M.
        • Nuijten M.B.
        • Olsson-Collentine A.
        • Wicherts J.M.
        Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology.
        PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0233107
        • Page M.J.
        • Moher D.
        • Fidler F.M.
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Brennan S.E.
        • Haddaway N.R.
        • et al.
        The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability in Syntheses of Evidence.
        Syst Rev. 2021; 10: 112
        • Longo D.L.
        • Drazen J.M.
        Data sharing.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 276-277
        • Montgomery J.
        Data sharing and the idea of ownership.
        New Bioeth. 2017; 23: 81-86
        • Mikk K.A.
        • Sleeper H.A.
        • Topol E.J.
        The pathway to patient data ownership and better health.
        JAMA. 2017; 318: 1433-1434
        • Contreras J.L.
        • Rumbold J.
        • Pierscionek B.
        Patient data ownership.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 935
        • Yavchitz A.
        • Ravaud P.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Moher D.
        • Hrobjartsson A.
        • Lasserson T.
        • et al.
        A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 75: 56-65
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • Boutron I.
        • Hoffmann T.C.
        • Mulrow C.D.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: n71
        • Wilkinson M.D.
        • Dumontier M.
        • Aalbersberg I.J.
        • Appleton G.
        • Axton M.
        • Baak A.
        • et al.
        The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.
        Sci Data. 2016; 3: 160018
        • Federer L.M.
        • Belter C.W.
        • Joubert D.J.
        • Livinski A.
        • Lu Y.-L.
        • Snyders L.N.
        • et al.
        Data sharing in PLOS ONE: an analysis of data availability statements.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0194768
        • Rowhani-Farid A.
        • Barnett A.G.
        Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study.
        BMJ Open. 2016; 6: e011784
        • McDonald L.
        • Schultze A.
        • Simpson A.
        • Graham S.
        • Wasiak R.
        • Ramagopalan S.
        A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: a cross-sectional study.
        F1000Res. 2017; 6: 1708
        • Danchev V.
        • Min Y.
        • Borghi J.
        • Baiocchi M.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        Evaluation of data sharing after implementation of the international committee of medical journal editors data sharing statement requirement.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4: e2033972