Data- and code-archiving in the British Ecological Society journals: present status and recommendations for future improvements

Abstract

Data- and code-archiving are important components of open science, as both make research more transparent, reproducible, accountable, and credible, allowing future researchers to identify errors and build on previous work. Despite progress in implementing data- and code-archiving policies in journals publishing ecology and evolution research, issues remain. To be more useful to future researchers, archived data and code must not only be archived, but also meet good practice standards.We collected data from 1,861 papers published between 2017 and 2024 in the seven British Ecological Society (BES) journals, during a hackathon event. We systematically checked associated data and/or code, metadata, help files and annotations to assess archiving practices. We determined if and where data and code files were archived, whether they could be located, downloaded, and opened, and whether they had associated READMEs, digital object identifiers (DOI) and licenses. We also recorded the file extensions used to save data/code files, and which programming languages code was written in. 3. 93% of the 1,861 papers we examined used data and ~90% used code. While 97% of the 1,735 papers that used data also archived it, only 35% of the 1,670 papers that used code also archived code. Over 85% of archived data and code could be located, downloaded, and opened. Reusability, however, was more limited; around a third of papers did not have a README or similar to explain their data/code files, and the quality of READMEs varied substantially.
4. We recommend that researchers archive their code, and that archived code be explicitly mentioned in the Data (or Code) Availability statement. We also encourage researchers to provide more accessible and informative READMEs for data and code. To help achieve these recommendations, we advocate that journals employ Data/Code editors to review data and code quality, research institutions deliver more training in open science practices, and funding bodies set clear expectations on open data and code practices.

Preprint

Citation

BibTeX citation:

@online{cooper2026,
  author = {Cooper, Natalie and Allen, Bethany and Almaani, Nour and
    Altwegg, Res and Balogh, Julia and Balti, Heikel and Barber, Robert
    and Barbosa de Sousa, Maria and Gabriel Nino Barreat, Jose and
    Barrett, Cassandra and Bates, Ryan and M.J.M. Beale, Alexia and
    Bliard, Louis and Blömer, Nynke and Borovyk, Dariia and Bunnenberg,
    Charlotte and Bygate, Elizabeth and Cash, Lucy and Chatterjee,
    Nilanjan and Chen, Ting-Wen and Chiti, Arianna and Suet-Wah Chung,
    Sheena and Chuquillanqui Soto, Hector and Ciezarek, Anna and
    Clarkson, Archie and A. Codling, Edward and Corradini, Andrea and
    Cowans, Amber and Dartnell, Sofia and Davis, Amy and Ludovico Maria
    De Benedictis, Luciano and Gywa, Gideon and Devenish, Christian and
    Dimri, Shreya and Dittrich, Carolin and Dorheim, Kalyn and Drage,
    Harriet and Duenas, Manuel-Angel and Efstathiou, Angelena and Evans,
    Luke and Santos, Myrna and J. Foxx, Alicia and Gardiner, Ross and
    Gaudard, Joseph and Gearty, William and Graham, Laura and Graves,
    Victoria and Green, Holly and Greensmith, Rosemary and Gérard,
    Sylvain and Helen Halbritter, Aud and Hartke, Tamara and Hechler,
    Robert and Hindle, Bethan and Hsing, Pen-Yuan and Illanas, Sonia and
    Iossa, Graziella and Jackson, Eleanor and Jones, Lewis and Jones,
    Faith and Jones, Joshua and Jupke, Jonathan and Kaunain, Nabilla and
    Kennedy, Rochelle and Kerr, Matthew and J. Kester, Nicole and
    Klaassen, Moritz and Anna Konecka, Oliwia and Krasnow, Ruby and
    Kukowski, Rebekka and Kumar, Abhishek and Kuminski, Rowan and Soylu,
    Kuzey and Laccetti, Lucrezia and Lagisz, Malgorzata and Latifi,
    Hooman and Lecomte, Nicolas and Luchmun, Keshav and Lévêque, Agathe
    and Markitantova, Alexandra and Marshall, Benjamin and
    Menares-Barraza, Esteban and Mertens, Daan and Mesbahi, Geoffrey and
    Meyer, Jennifer and Millard, Joseph and Montilla, Luis and Moreira,
    Bruno and Morera, Albert and Murali, Gopal and Murray, Marcella and
    Märker, Frederik and Nagahawatte, Kaushalya and Narraway, Claire and
    Niven, Holly and Nytko, Alivia and Ohse, Bettina and Patterson,
    Stuart and Phillips, Helen and Pienaar, Ryan and Pollo, Pietro and
    Ponce, Ángel and Porto, Lucas and Preston, Elizabeth and Prieul,
    Clemence and Prylutska, Alona and Prylutskyi, Oleh and Radman-Daw,
    Klara and Matthieu Raharison, Aina and Rao, Rachana and Read, Freya
    and Record, Sydne and Rees, William and Reeve, Richard and Rhodes,
    Harriet and Rocabado, Camila and Rouviere, Anna and Rönnfeldt, Anna
    and Sagouis, Alban and Sakhalkar, Sailee and S. Santos, Gabriel and
    Shakur Mohammad, Abdus and Shaw, Rebecca and Siegieda, Dominika and
    Šmídova, Lucia and Simmons, Benno and Sisley, Hannah and
    Sánchez-Tójar, Alfredo and Gonzalez Taboada, Fernando and Taylor,
    Nigel and Teague, Hannah and Thrikkadeeri, Karthik and Thuroczy,
    Viktoria and Varah, Alexa and Vinay, K. and Watrobska, Cecylia and
    Williams, Zach and Windecker, Saras},
  title = {Data- and Code-Archiving in the {British} {Ecological}
    {Society} Journals: Present Status and Recommendations for Future
    Improvements},
  date = {2026-03-08},
  url = {https://www.luismmontilla.com/papers/cooper2026/},
  doi = {10.32942/X26W9V},
  langid = {en},
  abstract = {1. Data- and code-archiving are important components of
    open science, as both make research more transparent, reproducible,
    accountable, and credible, allowing future researchers to identify
    errors and build on previous work. Despite progress in implementing
    data- and code-archiving policies in journals publishing ecology and
    evolution research, issues remain. To be more useful to future
    researchers, archived data and code must not only be archived, but
    also meet good practice standards. 2. We collected data from 1,861
    papers published between 2017 and 2024 in the seven British
    Ecological Society (BES) journals, during a hackathon event. We
    systematically checked associated data and/or code, metadata, help
    files and annotations to assess archiving practices. We determined
    if and where data and code files were archived, whether they could
    be located, downloaded, and opened, and whether they had associated
    READMEs, digital object identifiers (DOI) and licenses. We also
    recorded the file extensions used to save data/code files, and which
    programming languages code was written in. 3. 93\% of the 1,861
    papers we examined used data and \textasciitilde90\% used code.
    While 97\% of the 1,735 papers that used data also archived it, only
    35\% of the 1,670 papers that used code also archived code. Over
    85\% of archived data and code could be located, downloaded, and
    opened. Reusability, however, was more limited; around a third of
    papers did not have a README or similar to explain their data/code
    files, and the quality of READMEs varied substantially. 4. We
    recommend that researchers archive their code, and that archived
    code be explicitly mentioned in the Data (or Code) Availability
    statement. We also encourage researchers to provide more accessible
    and informative READMEs for data and code. To help achieve these
    recommendations, we advocate that journals employ Data/Code editors
    to review data and code quality, research institutions deliver more
    training in open science practices, and funding bodies set clear
    expectations on open data and code practices.}
}

For attribution, please cite this work as:

Cooper, Natalie, Bethany Allen, Nour Almaani, et al. 2026. “Data- and Code-Archiving in the British Ecological Society Journals: Present Status and Recommendations for Future Improvements.” bioRxiv, March 8. https://doi.org/10.32942/X26W9V.