Data Archiving Permissions
JPAN supports open science by encouraging data and code deposition in trusted repositories. Clear data availability statements improve reproducibility across pancreatic research.
FAIR Data
Repositories
Access
Code
Compliance
Reuse
Data Expectations
ArchivingRepository Deposition
Deposit datasets in trusted repositories and include accession numbers in the manuscript and data availability statement.
Sensitive Data
For controlled access data or clinical samples, describe restrictions and provide a pathway for qualified access.
Code Availability
Share analysis scripts and parameter files to support reproducibility and validation.
Common Repositories
Data Availability Statements
Include clear statements describing where data are hosted, how to access them, and any restrictions. Use persistent links and version identifiers.
Clinical Data
Deidentify patient data and follow institutional and regulatory requirements. Provide IRB approvals and data use agreements when needed.
Material Availability
Where feasible, deposit reagents or assay materials and provide catalog numbers. If materials cannot be shared, explain limitations.
Workflow Transparency
Provide detailed methods for imaging, biomarker analysis, or computational pipelines to ensure reproducibility across labs.
Early planning for data deposition helps avoid last-minute delays during production and acceptance.
Data Sharing Guidance
Best PracticeControlled Access
When data require restrictions, provide contact pathways and ethical approvals so qualified researchers can request access.
File Formats
Use non proprietary formats when possible and document software versions to support long term reuse.
Metadata Completeness
Describe variables, units, and sample identifiers to ensure datasets are interpretable by other researchers.
Additional Notes
GuidanceSubmission Support
Contact [email protected] with brief questions to avoid delays during submission.
Workflow
Clear documentation and timely responses help keep editorial timelines on track.
Visibility
Well structured manuscripts improve search visibility and long term impact.
Submission Quality
Author ChecklistStructure
Use a clear structure with focused aims, methods, results, and conclusions. A clean structure helps reviewers evaluate pancreatic relevance quickly.
Methods Transparency
Describe sample handling, assays, and statistical choices so findings can be replicated across pancreatic cohorts.
Ethics And Consent
Include IRB approvals, consent statements, and animal care details to support ethical compliance.
Archiving Policy Execution
Operational ComplianceRepository Selection Logic
Choose repositories that align with funder mandates, discipline norms, and long term accessibility requirements. For pancreatic datasets, platforms should support structured metadata, controlled access options where needed, and persistent identifiers that keep datasets discoverable beyond the initial publication cycle.
Permission Boundaries
Authors must clearly separate data that can be openly shared from data requiring legal or ethical restriction. When controlled access is required, include transparent request procedures and governance criteria so legitimate researchers can obtain access without unnecessary friction.
Documentation Standards
Archive packages should include codebooks, variable definitions, protocol notes, and file level descriptions. Well documented archives increase reproducibility, reduce misinterpretation risk, and improve downstream citation by teams using secondary analysis to advance pancreatic research programs.
Author Responsibilities After Publication
Lifecycle GovernanceVersion Traceability
If datasets are corrected or expanded, update repository records and maintain transparent version history. This protects research continuity and ensures readers understand which dataset version supports each published conclusion.
Access Support
Provide an active contact point for legitimate archive access questions. Timely support improves data reuse quality and reinforces trust in published findings, particularly for collaborative multicenter pancreatic projects where secondary analysis is common.
Impact Amplification
Well curated archives increase research reuse, citation potential, and institutional credibility. Data sharing quality is now a competitive signal for grants, partnerships, and translational influence, making archiving discipline a strategic advantage for authors and departments.
Complete repository records with clear access rules, variable definitions, and version history materially improve secondary analysis quality. Strong archiving discipline also supports funder compliance audits and demonstrates institutional commitment to transparent pancreatic research governance.
High quality archive documentation supports reproducibility, accelerates secondary analysis, and improves trust in long term data reuse decisions across pancreatic research collaborations.
Archive governance should be reviewed periodically to maintain access integrity and documentation accuracy.
Periodic archive audits improve long term dataset reliability.
Complete metadata improves future validation and reuse.
Consistent file labeling reduces downstream data confusion.
