Hi Rick,
Thanks for highlighting this. I’ve always been a big fan of T&F’s survey work---they’ve provided some incredibly useful insights into the open landscape over the years. In this case, though, I think the press release kind of smooshes together a bunch of stuff in order to make “open science” look like it’s on the march.
But is it really? Providing a snapshot in time for how many researchers use ORCID ID’s and data availability statements, plus share their code and publish preprints and whatever else, and then pointing to all this as evidence that we’re “moving the needle on open data” doesn’t work for me (curiously, licensing wasn’t included as one of open data features measured, because a CC-BY dataset is functionally useless---it needs to be CC-0 licensed). Maybe a time series exploration of these different elements would be more meaningful, but still, the montage itself is kind of a “wait what?” mix of ones and zeros. Because considering a different basket of metrics---say, the prevalence of CC-0 licenses plus data management plans and long-term funding for repository maintenance---might reveal a completely different (and more sobering) picture. Even if you just crunch these survey numbers with respect to open data and not everything everywhere all at once, you come up with totally different conclusions than in the press release:
* Percent of studies where data was generated: 97.7 (7948 out of 8132)
* Percent these 7948 studies where data was shared: 25
* Percent these 7948 studies where data was put into a data repository: 10.4
* Percent these 7948 studies where data was assigned a DOI: 3.7
To me, this looks about right---it aligns with what we know about open data use. And it ain’t pretty. But is this an improvement over 2019? Are some data repositories getting more traction than others (answer: yes)? Are some fields knocking it out of the park (yes)? Are there roadblocks to open data we could learn from (yes)? These are the questions we need to ask before declaring victory.
And then finally, you’ve heard me carry on about this before, but just dumping Excel files onto figshare or github (or where ever) doesn’t make data useful. Researchers can check a box by doing this, but to what end? Most likely to satisfy a funding requirement, because the data is most likely not reusable in this format in any meaningful sense. Without a concerted effort in fields (with the challenges in each field being entirely different) to standardize deposits, include enough information to ensure accurate reuse, and devote excruciatingly painstaking time (=money) to clean and integrate data, we’re just going through the motions. It’s only open in the sense of transparency (and even then, often not because the data that’s provide is just summary level, like the numbers used to generate a graph). It isn’t open data in the sense of actually helping researchers work across the aisle and make research more useful and reproducible.
So, in conclusion, I love T&F and I love their survey work. But I don’t love the idea of reading too much into this data and/or thinking that open science is something we can stick a number on like this. It’s a clever idea for sure, but from the open science and open data perspectives, we have a very long way to go before we can start claiming that we’re moving the needle on anything other the hyperbole meter right now. At least across research writ large, meaningful open data still very much an aspiration, not a reality.
All the best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)<sci.institute>
[cid:image001.jpg@01DC4431.5AC8AF20]
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [OPENCAFE-L] FW: Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations
Fellow Denizens of the Open Café –
I think many of our listmembers will find this report interesting.
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Taylor and Francis <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2025 at 1:59 AM
To: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations
Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations Analysis by Taylor & Francis and DataSeer finds 52% of sampled articles include a Data...
Adoption of open research practices exceeding expectations
Analysis by Taylor & Francis and DataSeer finds 52% of sampled articles include a Data Availability Statement
New analysis of open research practices suggests that researchers are increasingly motivated to share their data by factors beyond policy mandates, such as enhanced visibility, impact, and collaboration. The investigation by Taylor & Francis and DataSeer found that over half of authors included a Data Availability Statement (DAS) in their journal article, explaining whether and how readers can access data, and a third of researchers in some disciplines openly shared their data.
Open research (or 'open science') makes all the outputs of a research project available for others to read, reuse, and build upon. Sharing outputs such as data, code, and software supports the transparency, reproducibility, and replicability of results. This in turn encourages trust in research and allows for stronger, more rigorous academic debate.
To assess the extent to which researchers are adopting open research practices, Taylor & Francis and DataSeer created an AI-driven landscape analysis of open research indicators across a sample of over 8,000 Taylor & Francis journal articles published in 2023.
The results published in a new report, 'Moving the needle on open data'<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJwsy01u5CAQQOHT4F21-DOQBYtsfI1WQRUxExv3AJ2obz_KKNvv6VHUIVvpFo7KO6WlM1Yve0yEnEwwjjBrS-TWJJWyKZhCumi_1OhCeWNpPKug5V3ZbGQwxq0lCStHJf6sf-HEenAf4NdMebUpJTjL95_j9hOWI-5zPoYw70JvQm-1jfqxz3Gb-Dqujo1Kx5bruOXrFHrrPBh73qGeD8xT6O28vmr7gLkzNGY6GK4G14MbEE6Ext8w5pNeQm_LyVQROh-Mg6FS_A_3XxDmXXlpdVh67DV_3rER93E1YWV6PW9Mz2XMznz-rF4FdB4zOBNWsH71EN4kwmpWlSmVkoJfvqL-FwAA__8R6XDX>, reveal considerable variation of uptake by discipline and geography. The report also uncovers how many authors are openly sharing the code and software related to their research; the proportion that are depositing a preprint of their article; and the adoption of ORCID iDs.
A key finding is that researchers are going beyond the minimum open research requirements of the journal they publish in. Given that not all journals currently mandate the inclusion of a DAS, the team expected around a third of articles would include one. In fact, they found that just over half of researchers (52%) had done so. Similarly, a third of researchers in some disciplines chose to openly share their research data regardless of the journal’s policy.
“We were very encouraged by the results of this analysis and the current uptake of open research practices has exceeded our expectations in every area,” commented Rebecca Taylor-Grant, Director of Open Science Strategy & Innovation at Taylor & Francis. “This work with DataSeer will now help us to better support our authors in taking this good practice even further.”
“Our Open Science Metrics provide unique business intelligence that reveal behavioral patterns, opportunities, and, as in this case, progress toward more open, rapid, and reproducible research,” said Tim Vines, founder and CEO of DataSeer. “Regular tracking of these data points empowers publishers to adjust their policies in step with research culture and continue to improve.”
Taylor & Francis is committed to working collaboratively with the academic community to drive a sustainable shift toward open research. The publisher will use these insights to develop discipline-specific support for authors across its journal portfolio of over 2,700 titles.
Read the full report: Moving the needle on open data<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJwsy01u5CAQQOHT4F21-DOQBYtsfI1WQRUxExv3AJ2obz_KKNvv6VHUIVvpFo7KO6WlM1Yve0yEnEwwjjBrS-TWJJWyKZhCumi_1OhCeWNpPKug5V3ZbGQwxq0lCStHJf6sf-HEenAf4NdMebUpJTjL95_j9hOWI-5zPoYw70JvQm-1jfqxz3Gb-Dqujo1Kx5bruOXrFHrrPBh73qGeD8xT6O28vmr7gLkzNGY6GK4G14MbEE6Ext8w5pNeQm_LyVQROh-Mg6FS_A_3XxDmXXlpdVh67DV_3rER93E1YWV6PW9Mz2XMznz-rF4FdB4zOBNWsH71EN4kwmpWlSmVkoJfvqL-FwAA__8R6XDX>
Data from the landscape analysis can be found on Figshare: Open Science Indicators for a corpus of 8,131 research articles published by Taylor & Francis journals<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJwszjtuAyEUheHVQAe6cHlNQeFmtmHxuNjEM3YC40TZfWQr7Xd0pL9GHYoBxykq75QGh0bzawy5UNEJXcbWWkthKRVwwZyTMxkL79GFthCgJxU0nJUpCAHR2ZaZgdkr3fqX2FPfaEzhbanFmpyz2NvPxyZfA9_i9Tg-J8MT0yvTa310-RgXplcF0kEwTK_7Ilu_zGsaJBFQvQN3qj2JQRulSaLX-IbzPzA8KQ9GBz7i6OV2TvdKYz7uzED-fUqqTz6PQbS_rl6F5HwqwmGwwnjrRVggCYtWlZpby8Hz76j_AgAA___QXFnz>
---
About Taylor & Francis
Taylor & Francis<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJwsyz1uAyEQQOHTQIfF7wxbULjxNSxgBpl4d53AOpFvHzlK-z09SjZWr0FyMgjGanDeylvihoTZYCkeNFGMS1ugBtBQzNI8yJ4gtoW1QzbR6qvx1enoHIRWhNezE9_7l9pyX3lMhaFSDb6Uorb287Ge3kGu6XYcn1O4s7AXYS9Hfq2PkXdqI--1z1N9bMJe5MbUsxq8cp6sOqU_uP6DcGeD2tsoRxq93q95Jx7zsQuvy-t5YnrKeQzm7b2iiRkwVwUuBuUxoIqLziq4YCqV1kpE-Z3sbwAAAP__ftdWgA> supports diverse communities of experts, researchers and knowledge makers around the world to accelerate and maximize the impact of their work. We are a leader in our field, publish across all disciplines and have one of the largest Humanities and Social Sciences portfolios. Our expertise, built on an academic publishing heritage of over 200 years, advances trusted knowledge that fosters human progress.
Our 2,500+ people, based in a global network of offices in more than 15 countries, use their skills and the latest technology to curate, validate and share impactful advanced, emergent and applied knowledge. Under the Taylor & Francis, Routledge and F1000 imprints, we publish 2,700 journals, 8,000 new books each year and partner with more than 700 scholarly societies.
Taylor & Francis is proud to be a Global Certified Accessible™ publisher and to have achieved CarbonNeutral® certification for our operations and print publications in accordance with The CarbonNeutral Protocol.
About DataSeer
DataSeer<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJwsyztOAzEQgOHT2J0jvx-FizS5RjSeGSsmuwHsDYjboyDa79dP1Wb0OkquJkVjdXTeyltF3zN100rxMRiEAjZ3REuhON1blKPG3Atrl9hkq6_Go9PZuRh6E16vQXwfn2qHsfFcKgUkDL61pvb-_badXkFu9XYcH0u4s7AXYS8EByzmeYIh7EXuTAPU5I1hsRpU_-D6D8KdTdLeZjnrHHi_woN4rveH8Lr9PE9MT7mOyby_1mQyxASoostB-RSSykWDCi4YpNZ7y0l-VfsbAAD__0iuUvM> is a leading provider of AI solutions for scholarly communications, empowering funders, institutions, and publishers to advance open science practice among researchers. Through products like Compliance Checks, Open Science Metrics, and DataSeer SnapShot, we fill the urgent need for low-cost, scalable solutions to measure open science, show researchers how to comply with policy, and deploy just-in-time interventions, bridging the gap between policy and application.
Contact
Taylor & Francis: Mark Robinson, Media Relations Manager ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
DataSeer: Tim Vines, Founder and CEO ([log in to unmask]<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJwsy81u6yAQQOGnMTuiGYbfBYv7JNYAgy6NnargtOrbV6m6_Y5OyyZWC15JxuDRgCdr1P8cnPW9JMBagCsmokImYqqdJaF3amQfexKgIBgN7GgrQSTyrpfNwhpN7uNDnzwOmUsHV1t1tpSiz_71dtxeQR35GudmofHFS2TeeKhT2mA95RBeokfLv7D_wUb_MIA1Uc08R73v_Ggy1_tjs1C-nzdpT7WuKXK-1oCRfeCqPUWnbXBBxwSsHTmsrfReYlCf2fwEAAD__46PT4Q>)
The views expressed in this media release are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cision.
You are receiving this email because you were included on Taylor & Francis Group, LLC's media release. To unsubscribe and stop receiving emails from this organisation click here<https://us.cisionone.cision.com/c/eJx0zsGOGyEMxvGnYW5EYINhDnNYKZrXiLAxCt1ksh2Srfr21bS97GGv_sv6fnWBLMHRpItP5MERBpiuC3g8zjEje5Dckih5EBdDo4aFp75QbrM6TOozuIsPgi4jUmxsghu96nv_ae-l33QfNkWpEgMz23v79eN2OsJ0W67P58cw-GZgNbCWj36SPvpjOz02NbB-egPrXWsvl11vWoYOA-trGy8esndWg1_zpVeDZ59cgGyA9JgxeN67vF_KVnUfj80Ex79fJ60vA3Qt42rwHEOILnk3O2RFVmCJwgRFPSX0nnKdY4oYJJSZyLXCmlTmEJ36BHH6q7D_FbbX5QvL4Ns_07Qv31im8dxV78dr8rlQKmIJc7QhxWTz7IqNGL1Ubo1zmj4X-BMAAP__3AOH3Q>.
________________________________
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives<https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L>
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
########################################################################
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]
########################################################################
|
