Open Repository Deposit
De-identified datasets may be archived with stable accession links.
Data Transparency
Data Archiving Permissions
Data Archiving Permissions
Journal of Palliative Care and Hospice
Support reproducible palliative care and hospice science through transparent, practical, and policy-compliant data archiving statements.
45%APC Savings
GlobalResearch Community
24/7Open Access
Data Governance
Data Archiving Permissions and Reuse
JPCH encourages responsible archiving to support reproducibility while honoring ethical and legal constraints.
Journal of Palliative Care and Hospice requires clear data availability statements that explain storage location, access route, and reuse conditions.
When full public release is restricted, controlled access pathways should be documented with transparent review and request criteria.
Data governance clarity strengthens confidence in findings and enables credible secondary analysis.
Accepted Archiving Models
How Data and Code Can Be Shared
Different study types may require different sharing models; disclosure quality is the key expectation.
Controlled Access Systems
Sensitive data may be hosted in governed repositories with request processes.
Institutional Repositories
University or company repositories are acceptable with clear access details.
Supplementary Files
Non-sensitive supporting datasets may be attached as supplementary materials.
Code and Script Sharing
Analysis scripts should include environment notes and version context.
Metadata-Only Records
If full release is restricted, metadata should still indicate dataset existence.
Statement Requirements
What Authors Must Include
Data statements should be operational and reproducibility-oriented.
- Repository name, identifier, and stable access URL when available.
- Dataset scope description, including raw/processed/aggregated status.
- Access conditions: open, controlled, embargoed, or request-based.
- Legal or ethical constraints affecting redistribution rights.
- Contact route and expected process for controlled access requests.
- Versioning notes if data or scripts may be updated post-publication.
Align data statements with ethics approvals and consent language to avoid policy conflicts during review.
If access is restricted, explain rationale clearly so readers can interpret constraints transparently.
Reproducibility Value
Why Archiving Quality Matters
High-quality archiving improves trust, validation potential, and cumulative evidence development.
Structured data disclosures support verification by reviewers, replicators, and evidence synthesis teams.
Transparent archiving reduces post-publication friction and improves cross-study comparability.
JPCH may request clarification if statements are incomplete or inconsistent with ethics disclosures.
Best practice: finalize data and code governance details before submission to reduce avoidable delays.
Submission Planning
Execution Notes for Higher Acceptance Readiness
Use these practical notes to improve clarity, policy alignment, and review efficiency before final upload.
Editorial planning insight: Data statements should specify repository path, access route, and any reuse constraints clearly. This approach helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript faster without sacrificing rigor.
Author workflow guidance: Controlled-access datasets require transparent request governance and expected response timelines. Teams that apply this step early usually reduce revision friction and protect publication timelines.
Quality acceleration note: Versioning notes are important when archived datasets or scripts are updated post-publication. The same practice also improves metadata quality and downstream indexing discoverability.
Submission strategy point: De-identification and compliance details should balance privacy protection with analytical usefulness. It supports stronger decision transparency and more efficient peer-review communications.
Publication readiness reminder: Code and environment notes strengthen reproducibility for independent analysts. This improves consistency between core manuscript sections and supporting files.
Operational recommendation: For data archiving permissions planning, document reviewer-response changes against exact manuscript locations; state practical limitations and boundary conditions explicitly. This supports cleaner editorial decisions and faster acceptance readiness.
Reviewer-facing clarity note: For data archiving permissions planning, confirm metadata fields and author identifiers before production lock; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Production planning guidance: For data archiving permissions planning, tighten conclusion language so claims remain proportional to data strength; ensure data and code availability statements match policy language. This improves downstream indexing quality and retrieval relevance.
Editorial planning insight: For data archiving permissions planning, align title, abstract, and keyword language with the primary evidence claim; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Author workflow guidance: For data archiving permissions planning, map each major result to a clear methods description and reproducibility note; verify that tables, figures, and narrative statements remain consistent. This protects release schedules by reducing production-stage rework.
Submit With Clear Data Governance
Include robust data and code statements from first submission to strengthen review confidence.
Editorial office: [email protected]
