Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) covers the organizational process and the conditions under which non-clinical health and environmental safety studies are planned, conducted, monitored, recorded, archived and reported. It is intended to promote the quality and validity of test data and improve the international acceptance of data generated in adherence to its principles

Health Canada questions and answers regarding applicability and recognition, acceptance of study data and the Standards Council of Canada

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'The maze of real-world evidence frameworks: from a desert to a jungle! An environmental scan and comparison across regulatory and health technology assessment agencies' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplementary Table 1: Search StrategiesSupplementary Table 2: Summary of real-world evidence guidance across regulatory and health technology assessment agencies, and other decision-makersSupplementary Table 3: Real-world evidence guidance references from international organizations or working groupsSupplementary Table 4: International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology-endorsed publications on real-world evidence topicsSupplementary Table 5: List of checklists, templates, and tools referenced by the included RWE guidance documentsAim: Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine’s life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences. Methods: RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded. Results: Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada’s Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorit ´e de Sant´ e, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings. Conclusion: Similarities in agencies’ expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) covers the organizational process and the conditions under which non-clinical health and environmental safety studies are planned, conducted, monitored, recorded, archived and reported. It is intended to promote the quality and validity of test data and improve the international acceptance of data generated in adherence to its principles

🇨🇦 Canada

Health Canada questions and answers regarding applicability and recognition, acceptance of study data and the Standards Council of Canada

This guide brings together online resources that contain U.S. government documents. Some are freely available to anyone with Internet access. Others include subscription databases accessible with a DHS device.

This guide will provide resources on Leadership and Communication. This research guide is not a comprehensive listing of sources, but is intended to be a starting point from which employees can begin their research according to their specific needs. https://dhs-gov.libguides.com/c.php?g=1047434

The PATH Study was launched in 2011 to inform the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory activities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The PATH Study is a collaboration between the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who use or do not use tobacco. 45,971 adults and youth constitute the first (baseline) wave, Wave 1, of data collected by this longitudinal cohort study. These 45,971 adults and youth along with 7,207 "shadow youth" (youth ages 9 to 11 sampled at Wave 1) make up the 53,178 participants that constitute the Wave 1 Cohort. Respondents are asked to complete an interview at each follow-up wave. Youth who turn 18 by the current wave of data collection are considered "aged-up adults" and are invited to complete the Adult Interview. Additionally, "shadow youth" are considered "aged-up youth" upon turning 12 years old, when they are asked to complete an interview after parental consent. At Wave 4, a probability sample of 14,098 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 10 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population (CNP) at the time of Wave 4. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 in the same sampled Primary Sampling Unit (PSU)s and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the CNP at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort. At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the CNP at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "second replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with the Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohorts who were at least age 15 and in the CNP at the time of Wave 7. This combined set of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort. Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts. Dataset 0002 (DS0002) contains the data from the State Design Data. This file contains 7 variables and 82,139 cases. The state identifier in the State Design file reflects the participant's state of residence at the time of selection and recruitment for the PATH Study. Dataset 1011 (DS1011) contains the data from the Wave 1 Adult Questionnaire. This data file contains 2,021 variables and 32,320 cases. Each of the cases represents a single, completed interview. Dataset 1012 (DS1012) contains the data from the Wave 1 Youth and Parent Questionnaire. This file contains 1,431 variables and 13,651 cases. Dataset 1411 (DS1411) contains the Wave 1 State Identifier data for Adults and has 5 variables and 32,320 cases. Dataset 1412 (DS1412) contains the Wave 1 State Identifier data for Youth (and Parents) and has 5 variables and 13,651 cases. The same 5 variables are in each State Identifier dataset, including PERSONID for linking the State Identifier to the questionnaire and biomarker data and 3 variables designating the state (state Federal Information Processing System (FIPS), state abbreviation, and full name of the state). The State Identifier values in these datasets represent participants' state of residence at the time of Wave 1, which is also their state of residence at the time of recruitment. Dataset 1611 (DS1611) contains the Tobacco Universal Product Code (UPC) data from Wave 1. This data file contains 32 variables and 8,601 cases. This file contains UPC values on the packages of tobacco products used or in the possession of adult respondents at the time of Wave 1. The UPC values can be used to identify and validate the specific products used by respondents and augment the analyses of the characteristics of tobacco products used

Assessment of adherence to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance in brief titles: Presence of specified elements in a representative sample of 346 current clinicaltrials.gov study records.

The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study is a collaboration between the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study was launched in 2011 to inform the FDA's tobacco regulatory activities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). For Wave 1 (baseline), the PATH Study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who use or do not use tobacco, yielding interviews with 45,971 adult and youth respondents. 45,971 adults and youth constitute the first (baseline) wave, Wave 1, of data collected by this longitudinal cohort study. These 45,971 adults and youth along with 7,207 "shadow youth" (youth ages 9 to 11 sampled at Wave 1) make up the 53,178 participants that constitute the Wave 1 Cohort. Respondents are asked to complete an interview at each follow-up wave. Youth who turn 18 by the current wave of data collection are considered "aged-up adults" and are invited to complete the Adult Interview. Additionally, "shadow youth" are considered "aged-up youth" upon turning 12 years old, when they are asked to complete an interview after parental consent.At Wave 4, a probability sample of 14,098 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 10 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort.At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This second replenishment sample was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohort who were at least age 15 and in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This combined set of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts.Biospecimen Collection Each adult respondent, who completed the interview at Wave 1, was asked to provide at least two biospecimens. Providing biospecimens was voluntary and was not a condition of participation. Respondents were asked to report their use of all nicotine-containing products during the 3-day period prior to the time of any biospecimen collection (Nicotine Exposure Questions (NEQs)) to facilitate interpretation of biomarker results. Of the 32,320 respondents who completed the Adult Interview at Wave 1, 21,801 (67.4 percent) provided a urine specimen and 14,520 (44.9 percent) provided a blood specimen. For the purposes of subsampling adults into the Wave 1 Biomarker Core, adult participants were grouped by tobacco product use at Wave 1 into nine mutually exclusive groups.A sample of 11,522 adults who provided sufficient urine for the planned analyses were selected from the first six tobacco product use groups (see section 3.1 of the Biomarker Restricted-Use Files User Guide) representing people who never used tobacco, currently use tobacco, and formerly used tobacco (within the last 12 months). This group constitutes the original Wave 1 Biomarker Core. Of the 11,522 adults, 7,159 also provided a blood specimen. All urine and blood specimens provided by the Wave 1 Biomarker Core were sent for laboratory analysis.Subsequent to this selection, an additional stratified probability sample of adults who completed the Wave 1 Adult Interview and provided a sufficient amount of urine for the planned analyses at Wave 1 (independent of whether

The PATH Study was launched in 2011 to inform the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory activities under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The PATH Study is a collaboration between the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The study sampled over 150,000 mailing addresses across the United States to create a national sample of people who use or do not use tobacco. 45,971 adults and youth constitute the first (baseline) wave, Wave 1, of data collected by this longitudinal cohort study. These 45,971 adults and 9 to 11 sampled at Wave 1) make up the 53,178 participants that constitute the Wave 1 Cohort. Respondents are asked to complete an interview at each follow-up wave. Youth who turn 18 by the current wave of data collection are considered "aged-up adults" and are invited to complete the Adult Interview. Additionally, "shadow youth" are considered "aged-up youth" upon turning 12 years old, when they are asked to complete an interview after parental consent. At Wave 4, a probability sample of 14,098 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 10 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 in the same sampled primary sampling units (PSU)s and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with Wave 4 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 1 Cohort who were in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 4. This combined set of Wave 4 participants, 52,731 participants in total, forms the Wave 4 Cohort. At Wave 7, a probability sample of 14,863 adults, youth, and shadow youth ages 9 to 11 was selected from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7. This sample was recruited from residential addresses not selected for Wave 1 or Wave 4 in the same sampled PSUs and segments using similar within-household sampling procedures. This "second replenishment sample" was combined for estimation and analysis purposes with the Wave 7 adult and youth respondents from the Wave 4 Cohorts who were at least age 15 and in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at the time of Wave 7 participants, 46,169 participants in total, forms the Wave 7 Cohort. Please refer to the Restricted-Use Files User Guide that provides further details about children designated as "shadow youth" and the formation of the Wave 1, Wave 4, and Wave 7 Cohorts. Wave 4.5 was a special data collection for youth only who were aged 12 to 17 at the time of the Wave 4.5 interview. Wave 4.5 was the fourth annual follow-up wave for those who were members of the Wave 1 Cohort. For those who were sampled at Wave 4, Wave 4.5 was the first annual follow-up wave. Wave 5.5, conducted in 2020, was a special data collection for Wave 4 Cohort youth and young adults ages 13 to 19 at the time of the Wave 5.5 interview. Also in 2020, a subsample of Wave 4 Cohort adults ages 20 and older were interviewed via the PATH Study Adult Telephone Survey (PATH-ATS). Wave 7.5 was a special collection for Wave 4 and Wave 7 Cohort youth and young adults ages 12 to 22 at the time of the Wave 7.5 interview. For those who were sampled at Wave 7, Wave 7.5 was the first annual follow-up wave. Dataset 1002 (DS1002) contains the data from the Wave 4.5 Youth and Parent Questionnaire. This file contains 1,617 variables and 13,131 cases. Of these cases, 11,378 are continuing youth having completed a prior Youth Interview. The other 1,753 cases are "aged-up youth" having previously been sampled as "shadow youth" Datasets 1112, 1212, and 1222, (DS1112, DS1212, and DS1222) are data files comprising the weight variables for Wave 4.5. The "all-waves" weight file contains weights for participants in the Wave 1 Cohort who completed a Wave 4.5 Youth Interview and completed interviews (if old enough to do so) or verified their information with the study (if not old enough to be interviewed) in Waves 1, 2, 3, and 4. There are two separate files with "single wave" weights: one for the Wave 1 Cohort and one for the Wave 4 Cohort. The "single-wave" weight file for the Wave 1 Cohort contains weights for youth who c

Context

The Open Data 500, funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (http://www.knightfoundation.org/) and conducted by the GovLab, is the first comprehensive study of U.S. companies that use open government data to generate new business and develop new products and services.

Study Goals

• Provide a basis for assessing the economic value of government open data

• Encourage the development of new open data companies

• Foster a dialogue between government and business on how government data can be made more useful

The Govlab's Approach

The Open Data 500 study is conducted by the GovLab at New York University with funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The GovLab works to improve people’s lives by changing how we govern, using technology-enabled solutions and a collaborative, networked approach. As part of its mission, the GovLab studies how institutions can publish the data they collect as open data so that businesses, organizations, and citizens can analyze and use this information.

Company Identification

The Open Data 500 team has compiled our list of companies through (1) outreach campaigns, (2) advice from experts and professional organizations, and (3) additional research.

Outreach Campaign

• Mass email to over 3,000 contacts in the GovLab network

• Mass email to over 2,000 contacts OpenDataNow.com

• Blog posts on TheGovLab.org and OpenDataNow.com

• Social media recommendations

• Media coverage of the Open Data 500

• Attending presentations and conferences

Expert Advice

• Recommendations from government and non-governmental organizations

• Guidance and feedback from Open Data 500 advisors

Research

• Companies identified for the book, Open Data Now

• Companies using datasets from Data.gov

• Directory of open data companies developed by Deloitte

• Online Open Data Userbase created by Socrata

• General research from publicly available sources

What The Study Is Not

The Open Data 500 is not a rating or ranking of companies. It covers companies of different sizes and categories, using various kinds of data.

The Open Data 500 is not a competition, but an attempt to give a broad, inclusive view of the field.

The Open Data 500 study also does not provide a random sample for definitive statistical analysis. Since this is the first thorough scan of companies in the field, it is not yet possible to determine the exact landscape of open data companies.

The StudyAbroadGuide dataset is a collection of 2,190 conversational data pairs designed to assist students seeking guidance on studying abroad. It includes questions and answers about various study-abroad topics, including university selection, TOEFL requirements, application timelines, visa information, and more.

This dataset aims to provide a comprehensive, real-world conversational model that can be used to train AI chatbots, virtual assistants, and recommendation systems specifically focused on helping students navigate the study-abroad process.

Key Features:

• Total Conversations: 2,190
• Language: English
• License: Apache-2.0
• Dataset Type: Question-Answering

This dataset is well-suited for training AI models, improving study-abroad guidance chatbots, and developing personalized recommendations for students considering international education opportunities.

Governmental organizations collect and manage a variety of different types of data at different levels in order to fulfil their official tasks. These include geographical, environmental, meteorological, demographic, health, traffic, transport, financial and economic data. Access to this data has traditionally been severely restricted. Over the past ten years, however, there has been a global trend towards a more open data policy, which has been promoted by directives such as GeoIDG, the PSI Directive and INSPIRE. In Germany, the federal states and their authorities have also introduced an open data policy and make some of this data available to the public via platforms such as Destatis or GDI-DE (Open Government Data). This data is used for a variety of purposes, including determining location, analysing environmental trends, transport planning, health planning and more. Although this data is increasingly being used for scientific research, its full potential often remains unrealised, especially for large datasets. Despite the high quality of public authority data, further adaptation to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) is necessary to improve its reusability for research. However, data protection regulations and legal frameworks may impose restrictions that make it necessary to anonymise the data or comply with modern data standards. Nevertheless, government data is a valuable resource that makes a significant contribution to increasing knowledge in all scientific disciplines. As part of a pilot project funded by NFDI4Earth, the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) and the German Climate Computing Centre (DKRZ) worked together to facilitate access to data from public authorities, increase the visibility of this data and increase the number of users from various disciplines. The aim was to make the data available in standardised and FAIR-compliant formats for research and other public applications. The DWD's COSMO-REA6 reanalysis dataset (Kaspar et al. 2020), which is of central importance for climate modelling, analyses and energy applications in Europe, was selected as an application example. The standardisation process involved the conversion of regulatory data standards into domain-specific climate research standards and required close collaboration between DWD and DKRZ. After careful curation and quality checking, the dataset was made accessible via the ESGF infrastructure and archived in the WDCC for the long term, taking into account aspects of licensing and authorship. The project's insights and lessons learned were incorporated into a blueprint (Anders et al. 2024), providing guidance on making data from other authorities accessible and usable for both research and the public. Overall, the entire process can be divided into 5 sub-steps: (1) determination and classification of the need, (2) survey of the feasibility, (3) implementation, (4) feedback and follow-up, (5) dissemination. This blueprint outlines generalizable steps and aspects applicable across domains and collaborators, offering a framework for optimizing the use of governmental data in diverse fields.

The Tunnel Study Data User’s Guide provides an overview of the study including descriptions of the tunnels and emission factor calculations and introduces the datasets available on the portal.

Background Practice guidelines have been developed in response to the observation that variations exist in clinical medicine that are not related to variations in the clinical presentation and severity of the disease. Despite their widespread use, however, practice guideline evaluation lacks a rigorous scientific methodology to support its development and application.

   Discussion
   Firstly, we review the major epidemiological foundations of practice guideline development. Secondly, we propose a chronic disease epidemiological model in which practice patterns are viewed as the exposure and outcomes of interest such as quality or cost are viewed as the disease. Sources of selection, information, confounding and temporal trend bias are identified and discussed.


   Summary
   The proposed methodological framework for outcomes research to evaluate practice guidelines reflects the selection, information and confounding biases inherent in its observational nature which must be accounted for in both the design and the analysis phases of any outcomes research study.

Dataset from the Online Survey of the Research Data Alliance's Discipline-Specific Guidance for Data Management Plans Working Group.

The data was collected from November 8, 2021 to January 14, 2022.

The survey was divided into the following areas after a brief introduction on "Purpose of this survey" and "Use of the information you provide."

• Demographics
• Data Description and Collection
• Data Documentation & Quality
• Data Archiving, Publishing & Sharing After the Project
• Guidelines, Principles & Best Practices
• Follow-up interviews and group discussions

The analysis of the online survey was focused on the four areas: Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, Humanities & Social Sciences, and Engineering. The results of the evaluation will be presented in a separate publication.

In addition to the data, the variables and values are also published here.

The online survey questions can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7443373

A more detailed analysis and description can be found in the paper "Discipline-specific Aspects in Data Management Planning" submitted to Data Science Journal (2022-12-15).

The journals’ author guidelines and/or editorial policies were examined on whether they take a stance with regard to the availability of the underlying data of the submitted article. The mere explicated possibility of providing supplementary material along with the submitted article was not considered as a research data policy in the present study. Furthermore, the present article excluded source codes or algorithms from the scope of the paper and thus policies related to them are not included in the analysis of the present article.

For selection of journals within the field of neurosciences, Clarivate Analytics’ InCites Journal Citation Reports database was searched using categories of neurosciences and neuroimaging. From the results, journals with the 40 highest Impact Factor (for the year 2017) indicators were extracted for scrutiny of research data policies. Respectively, the selection journals within the field of physics was created by performing a similar search with the categories of physics, applied; physics, atomic, molecular & chemical; physics, condensed matter; physics, fluids & plasmas; physics, mathematical; physics, multidisciplinary; physics, nuclear and physics, particles & fields. From the results, journals with the 40 highest Impact Factor indicators were again extracted for scrutiny. Similarly, the 40 journals representing the field of operations research were extracted by using the search category of operations research and management.

Journal-specific data policies were sought from journal specific websites providing journal specific author guidelines or editorial policies. Within the present study, the examination of journal data policies was done in May 2019. The primary data source was journal-specific author guidelines. If journal guidelines explicitly linked to the publisher’s general policy with regard to research data, these were used in the analyses of the present article. If journal-specific research data policy, or lack of, was inconsistent with the publisher’s general policies, the journal-specific policies and guidelines were prioritized and used in the present article’s data. If journals’ author guidelines were not openly available online due to, e.g., accepting submissions on an invite-only basis, the journal was not included in the data of the present article. Also journals that exclusively publish review articles were excluded and replaced with the journal having the next highest Impact Factor indicator so that each set representing the three field of sciences consisted of 40 journals. The final data thus consisted of 120 journals in total.

‘Public deposition’ refers to a scenario where researcher deposits data to a public repository and thus gives the administrative role of the data to the receiving repository. ‘Scientific sharing’ refers to a scenario where researcher administers his or her data locally and by request provides it to interested reader. Note that none of the journals examined in the present article required that all data types underlying a submitted work should be deposited into a public data repositories. However, some journals required public deposition of data of specific types. Within the journal research data policies examined in the present article, these data types are well presented by the Springer Nature policy on “Availability of data, materials, code and protocols” (Springer Nature, 2018), that is, DNA and RNA data; protein sequences and DNA and RNA sequencing data; genetic polymorphisms data; linked phenotype and genotype data; gene expression microarray data; proteomics data; macromolecular structures and crystallographic data for small molecules. Furthermore, the registration of clinical trials in a public repository was also considered as a data type in this study. The term specific data types used in the custom coding framework of the present study thus refers to both life sciences data and public registration of clinical trials. These data types have community-endorsed public repositories where deposition was most often mandated within the journals’ research data policies.

The term ‘location’ refers to whether the journal’s data policy provides suggestions or requirements for the repositories or services used to share the underlying data of the submitted works. A mere general reference to ‘public repositories’ was not considered a location suggestion, but only references to individual repositories and services. The category of ‘immediate release of data’ examines whether the journals’ research data policy addresses the timing of publication of the underlying data of submitted works. Note that even though the journals may only encourage public deposition of the data, the editorial processes could be set up so that it leads to either publication of the research data or the research data metadata in conjunction to publishing of the submitted work.