Data Archiving Permissions for Surgery Proceedings
Our policy supports responsible data sharing, reproducibility, and governance compliance across surgery research settings.
Responsible Sharing with Practical Controls
Data archiving should enable reuse while protecting participants, institutions, and legal obligations.
Journal of Surgery Proceedings supports transparent archiving of data and code wherever ethically and legally feasible. Authors should define what can be shared, what requires controlled access, and who governs access approvals. Clear permission language reduces confusion for secondary users and supports reproducibility.
When datasets include patient-level variables, procedural imaging, or potentially identifiable features, de-identification methods and access restrictions must be described explicitly. If full open release is not possible, provide a controlled-access pathway with objective eligibility conditions.
Minimum Archiving Declaration Elements
Consistency between manuscript text and repository metadata is mandatory.
| Element | Required Statement | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Data Availability | Open, controlled, or restricted with rationale | Supports transparent reuse expectations |
| Access Authority | Who approves requests and under what criteria | Prevents ambiguous request pathways |
| Versioning | Dataset version linked to published analysis | Protects reproducibility |
| Code Notes | Code location or access limitation statement | Supports methodological verification |
Prepare Archiving Language Early
Late-stage permission edits are a common cause of production delay.
Confirm archiving rights before submission when third-party datasets, proprietary tools, or registry-linked records are involved. Mismatched permission statements between manuscript and repository entries often trigger post-acceptance correction cycles.
For support on data permissions, repository wording, and controlled-access statements, contact [email protected] before final file upload.
Operational Model for Controlled Surgical Data
Clear governance language protects both reuse value and participant rights.
For datasets derived from operative records, imaging, and perioperative registries, archiving permissions should define not only access status but also decision authority and processing timeline. Researchers requesting reuse should understand eligibility criteria and expected review stages without relying on informal correspondence.
Where full open data release is not possible, authors should provide a transparent controlled-access pathway with objective gatekeeping criteria. This approach supports reproducibility and secondary validation while preserving legal and ethical obligations tied to patient-sensitive surgical information.
Version control is essential for longitudinal and multicenter datasets. Declare which dataset version supports published analyses and how future corrections will be documented. Without version clarity, secondary analyses may diverge from published conclusions.
Code and analytic scripts should be referenced where feasible, including dependency notes and version identifiers. When code cannot be released, provide explicit rationale and sufficient methodological detail for reproducibility assessment.
Teams should harmonize repository terms with manuscript statements before final submission. Mismatched archive language is a frequent source of production hold after acceptance.
Archive Compliance Before Final Acceptance
Permission precision prevents post-acceptance production holds.
Authors should validate archive permissions before final acceptance by checking alignment between manuscript statements, repository metadata, and institutional governance conditions. Controlled-access datasets should include request workflow, eligibility criteria, and review authority so secondary users can follow transparent procedures without ambiguity.
For longitudinal surgical datasets, include update frequency and correction policy so future analysts can identify the exact version supporting published conclusions. Clear version governance protects reproducibility and prevents interpretive drift over time.
If repository terms change after acceptance, notify the editorial office immediately to maintain public record accuracy and avoid delayed metadata correction.
Archive statements should also specify whether requests are reviewed continuously or in scheduled cycles, and whether partial datasets can be released for method replication when full clinical records are restricted. This additional transparency improves reuse planning and aligns expectations for secondary investigators.
Where legal frameworks differ across collaborating institutions, include jurisdiction-aware constraints in the archive note to prevent cross-border access confusion.
Where ethics approvals impose staged release conditions, authors should describe release phases clearly so future users understand when and how additional data access becomes available. This practice reduces access ambiguity and improves auditability of controlled data workflows.
Archive notes should be reviewed again at proof stage to ensure repository language and manuscript statements remain synchronized after revision.
Early archive alignment also improves institutional compliance reporting.
This final alignment step protects archive reliability.
This preserves archive integrity.
Submit Policy-Ready Data Statements
Complete archiving declarations improve review clarity and publication efficiency.
For support: [email protected]
