4

Since recently I have adopted the practice of depositing and publishing raw data and background information (e.g. original images, chromatograms, R scripts, etc) regarding my published papers. I am still learning the best ways of doing this.

I am wondering what was the experience of colleagues with using the new options offered by Elsevier journals towards sharing raw data and supplementary information below:

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/methodsx/

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/data-in-brief/

I have just tried my first attempt with submitting a paper linking to parallel supplementary data submission to Data in Brief, and received somewhat negative reactions from my Reviewers. (In short they did not understand how it works, and why would anyone do it.)

Has anyone here tried such new data-sharing options yet? Opinions, please?

UPDATE 25/04/2018

I have just published a short manuscript with Data in Brief presenting data and images supplementary to another Elsevier paper. From my experience, I would not recommend others to publish with Data in Brief. (i) It is expensive for what it is; (ii) there was actually no peer review; (iii) the supplementary manuscript is pushed towards publication as soon as the linked main manuscript is accepted without opportunities to make significant changes; (iv) proof correction system is slow and mediated by confusing secretary editors; (v) it doesn't seem to add significantly more visibility than external, free data repositories. Feels like a money-making stunt by Elsevier. Hopefully it may prove more worthwhile over time.