Data-Sharing Statements Requested from Clinical Trials by Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health Journals: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data sharing plays a crucial role in health informatics, contributing to improving health information systems, enhancing operational efficiency, informing policy and decision-making, and advancing public health surveillance including disease tracking. Sharing individual participant data in public, environmental, and occupational health trials can help improve public trust and support by enhancing transparent reporting and reproducibility of research findings. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires all papers to include a data-sharing statement. However, it is unclear whether journals in the field of public, environmental, and occupational health adhere to this requirement. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether public, environmental, and occupational health journals requested data-sharing statements from clinical trials submitted for publication. METHODS: In this bibliometric survey of "Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health" journals, defined by the Journal Citation Reports (as of June 2023), we included 202 journals with clinical trial reports published between 2019 and 2022. The primary outcome was a journal request for a data-sharing statement, as identified in the paper submission instructions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between journal characteristics and journal requests for data-sharing statements, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% CIs. We also investigated whether the journals included a data-sharing statement in their published trial reports. RESULTS: Among the 202 public, environmental, and occupational health journals included, there were 68 (33.7%) journals that did not request data-sharing statements. Factors significantly associated with journal requests for data-sharing statements included open access status (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.97), high journal impact factor (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.15-4.78), endorsement of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.25-4.79), and publication in the United Kingdom (OR 7.18, 95% CI 2.61-23.4). Among the 134 journals requesting data-sharing statements, 26.9% (36/134) did not have statements in their published trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of the public, environmental, and occupational health journals did not request data-sharing statements in clinical trial reports. Among those journals that requested data-sharing statements in their submission guidance pages, more than one quarter published trial reports with no data-sharing statements. These results revealed an inadequate practice of requesting data-sharing statements by public, environmental, and occupational health journals, requiring more effort at the journal level to implement ICJME recommendations on data-sharing statements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".