Make a data availability statement match the material readers can access
Match a data access account to the actual supporting material. Use an original fictional worked example and preserve the evidence boundaries.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Describe which material supports the paper, where that material can be found and what access conditions actually apply. Check those details against the files and records before selecting wording. A familiar data-availability template cannot establish that a deposit exists, contains the relevant data or may be shared.
Begin with the target journal’s current instructions and the permissions governing your material. This guide concerns an accurate written account. It does not grant permission to release data, decide a consent question or establish compliance with a funder’s or institution’s requirements.
Check the applicable policy before choosing a statement
Taylor & Francis’s statement guidance, checked on 28 October 2026, explains that a data availability statement identifies the location and conditions of access. It also distinguishes which of its suggested statements fit different journal data policies. Do not treat a template accepted under one policy as a universal option.
Read the actual journal instructions alongside the records for the project. Establish where the statement belongs, which material it must cover and whether the manuscript’s review process affects how access information should be presented. Resolve uncertainty with the appropriate journal or institutional contact before submission.
Keep the permission decision separate from the wording decision. A file being technically uploadable does not mean you are authorised to share it. Conversely, a restricted item needs an accurate explanation of its actual status rather than a generic restriction invented to complete a form.
Map the statement to the supporting material
Create a working list of the relevant data or other materials. For each item, record the exact identity and version, its location, its access status and what has been verified. Follow the journal’s definition of what the statement must cover; do not assume that one file accounts for everything supporting the paper.
Distinguish data from documentation about data. A codebook may explain columns without providing the records analysed. A description of a repository deposit is not the deposit itself. “Available in the supplementary material” should point to the actual relevant files, not merely to a page that mentions them.
Use any supplied persistent identifier accurately, after checking its destination. Do not invent a DOI or present a provisional local filename as a public access route. If more than one version exists, identify the version relevant to the reported work.
Work through an original fictional file check
The manuscript, files and decisions below are entirely invented teaching material. No real dataset, repository deposit, permission, participant or identifier is described.
Imagine a fictional paper about the labels on a collection of display cards. Its draft statement says that all supporting material is in a supplementary file. The writer has checked the supplementary file and found a label-definition sheet. The record-level transcription used for the paper is listed separately as a proposed repository deposit, but its public location and release status have not yet been verified.
| Item in the fictional working record | Check completed | Consequence for the statement |
|---|---|---|
| Supplementary label-definition sheet | File opened and contents matched | The sheet can be identified accurately; it is not the record-level transcription |
| Transcription used in the paper | Working version identified | The statement must account for that material under the applicable policy |
| Proposed repository deposit | Public access and release status unverified | Do not describe it as openly available yet |
| Draft claim that all material is supplementary | Compared with the checked files | Revise the claim after resolving the transcription’s actual location and status |
The immediate output is a precise unresolved task: verify the approved release status, deposited version and access route for the transcription. It is not a finished availability declaration. The writer cannot honestly solve the mismatch by adding a plausible repository name or copying an “on request” sentence.
After the outstanding checks, the final wording must describe the established arrangement. The example deliberately supplies no address, access promise or reason for a restriction that could be pasted into a real submission.
Avoid promises that the records do not support
“Available on request” is a claim about an access route. Check that it is permitted by the relevant policy and supported by the actual arrangements before using it. Do not promise that an author will supply material that the author cannot release.
Likewise, do not describe material as unavailable because of consent, a licence or an embargo unless that is the documented reason. Use the appropriate project and institutional process to resolve the issue; an editing guide cannot determine a lawful release decision. Do not disclose confidential working details merely to make the statement sound specific.
Taylor & Francis also flags that access statements can identify authors during double-anonymous review. Follow the journal’s current submission procedure for that situation. Do not assume that omitting a name from the prose makes a linked record anonymous.
Check the final statement with the final files
Recheck the statement after files or repository records change. Confirm that the named version matches the material supporting the submitted paper and that the access description remains accurate. Keep unresolved checks visible to the responsible authors rather than quietly converting them into assertions.
The supporting-file guide addresses the reader’s separate task of locating material behind a paper. The dataset-citation guide addresses identifying the source used for a reported number or analysis. Neither a citation nor an availability statement substitutes for checking the actual access arrangement.
Before submission, ask whether every material location and access condition in the statement can be traced to a checked record. If a claim remains unverified, resolve it with the responsible people and applicable instructions. Clear prose should report the arrangement that exists, rather than make an incomplete deposit sound complete.
