Table 1.
Institutional repositories included in sample.
Fig 1.
Data collection and refinement method.
The Realities of Academic Data Sharing (RADS) flowchart for gathering and refining DOIs for data and software from DataCite and CrossRef sources.
Table 2.
Total counts of datasets and software code, by author institutional affiliation.
Fig 2.
Growth in number of repositories over time.
Count of repositories where data and software are shared by researchers from 2012 to 2022.
Fig 3.
DOIs in top 10 publishers by institution.
Total counts of software and data DOIs present in each of the top 10 repositories are presented by institution. The ENCODE bar at the University of Michigan is truncated at 4,000 (total N = 117,569) for the visualization to retain consistent scaling across institutions.
Fig 4.
Distribution of top publisher DOIs.
The data publishers are shown as a percentage of total data DOIs for each institution, with ENCODE and Faculty Opinions Ltd (A, left) and without (B, right) to show issues of scale.
Table 3.
Top 20 publishers of datasets and software code by affiliation.
Table 4.
Elements for DataCite Metadata Schema.
Fig 5.
Completeness of metadata fields for top DataCite repositories.
Percent of DOIs with complete (non-blank or missing) metadata for fields recommended in the 2022 OSTP memo. Year: Publication Year; Name: Creator Name; Affiliation: Creator Affiliation; RI: Related Identifiers; NI: Creator Name Identifier; Funder: Funder Name; Award: Funder Award Number; FI: Funder Identifier.
Table 5.
Metadata fields noted in the 2022 OSTP memo, by publisher and by percent complete.
Table 6.
Where’s the open science framework in our analysis?.