• Matt Vassar, Sam Jellison, Hannah Wendelbo, and Cole Wayant.
• Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA.
• Addict Behav. 2020 Mar 1; 102: 106193.

IntroductionTransparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings.MethodsWe conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources.ResultsIn the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%).ConclusionOur finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…