Psychological Science added data-sharing badges; open data rose from 2.5% to 22.8%

According to Ars Technica's report on a PLOS Biology study from the Center for Open Science, the journal Psychological Science introduced badges in January 2014 marking papers with shared data or materials. The authors say badges tell readers the journal values transparency and let authors show they met standards.

In 2012 and 2013 an average of 2.5 percent of articles reported available data. After badges, that rose quickly to 22.8 percent, and to as high as 39 percent in the first half of 2015. Comparison journals without badges went from 3.3 percent to 2.1 percent, which the authors used to argue the jump was not just a wider trend towards open data.

The team also checked quality across 2,478 articles. Of articles reporting data without badges, only six of 37 in other journals and two of 10 in Psychological Science before badges had accessible, correct, usable data. With badges, actual sharing matched reported sharing far more closely, though it was not perfect.

Reward transparency with a visible badge at the top of the paper, a nearly free signal that makes sharing count.

Researchers face career pressure to publish headline results, and sharing data brought no recognition until the badge did.

The badge is a public, immediate signal for both authors and readers.

Clear criteria for earning a badge may make the steps to transparency easier to follow.

Comparing against journals without badges separated the effect of the badge from general cultural change.

A tiny visible status signal can shift norms where private virtue goes unrewarded; and test the effect against a no-badge control group.

The study's authors say it is not clear why the badges work: it could be the signal that transparency is valued, or the simple guidelines. The study measured sharing, not whether sharing ultimately made replication easier or findings more reliable, and the Ars article notes shared data is not always usable.