A statement should provide a route, not advertise openness
An effective statement takes a reader from the paper to a defined data release and the documentation needed to interpret it. It distinguishes raw records, analysed data, code, instruments and supporting metadata. “Data are available” is unusable without location and conditions. “Available on request” is equally weak when no authorised custodian or decision criteria exist.
Public release is not always lawful or ethical. Consent, personal-data safeguards, third-party rights, security, contracts and ethics approvals can impose limits. FAIR accessibility includes clear access conditions; it does not mean that every dataset must be downloadable by everyone. The statement must match the real approved arrangement and agree with the repository, data-management plan and ethics record.
Follow the target journal's wording and structured submission fields. For protected data, obtain review from the competent privacy, ethics or legal function. This page supports publication drafting; it does not determine legal permission.
Identify an open release durably
Link directly to a repository landing page and provide a DOI or other persistent identifier. The version must contain the material underlying this publication. If a dataset continues to change, cite the frozen release as well as the wider project. A personal drive or repository homepage does not identify an object adequately.
Describe the package: analysed table, permissible raw data, codebook, README, scripts and instrument. A licence communicates reuse permission but cannot replace documentation. Open the files and inspect metadata, filenames and content for accidental personal or confidential information.
For an embargo, state the release date and what becomes available. “After publication” is ambiguous once the article is online. Peer-review access may use a temporary private link, but the published statement should resolve to the durable release.
Make controlled access an operational process
Give a meaningful reason, such as consent scope, re-identification risk, contractual restriction or protection of a vulnerable population. “For privacy reasons” alone does not identify the affected material or the possibility of access. Explain enough to make the boundary intelligible without disclosing sensitive facts.
A workable application route identifies an institution or data-access committee, form or durable contact, eligible applicants, proposal requirements, security controls, agreement and decision criteria. Do not promise approval. The named body must have authority and a plan for continuity after an individual researcher leaves.
Separate access to analytical variables from access to identities or keys. Depending on approval, a secure environment, aggregate output review or remote execution may be possible. Mention such options only when they are genuinely established.
Define unavailability narrowly and truthfully
Some records cannot be released even under application. Identify the data class and governing boundary without extending it automatically to every project output. Ask whether metadata, variable definitions, code, blank instruments or synthetic teaching data can be released separately. Label synthetic material unmistakably; it does not reproduce the original evidence.
Unavailability should not conceal poor planning, lost files or unresolved ownership. State and investigate those situations honestly rather than inventing an ethics restriction. For third-party datasets, name the owner and independent access route where permitted, without promising rights you cannot grant.
Ensure that claims in methods and supplementary files do not contradict the statement. A paper should not call data “publicly archived” while the repository object remains private or empty. Conversely, a public aggregate table may coexist with protected row-level records if each is described separately.
Test the statement as an external reader
- Open the identifier in a private browser session.
- Compare files and version with the final analysis.
- Check licence, embargo and application form.
- Ask the responsible body to confirm restrictions and contact route.
- Align the wording across manuscript, ethics record and data plan.
- Archive the final statement with the cited release.
The CRediT role matrix identifies data curation and validation. The competing-interest template records dependencies separately. More guidance sits in the publication ethics hub. The sole foundation route is the guide to verifiable evidence records.