This study investigates the effects of research data identifiers specified in data availability statements (DASs) on citations, with altmetrics serving as mediating indicators, as part of broader efforts to analyse the impact of open science policies on the diffusion of scholarly outputs. For this purpose, the study examined DAS from articles published in PLOS ONE over the past 11 years and collected data on the characteristics of research data identifiers, altmetrics and citations. Using a structural equation model to analyse the relationships among these variables, the results revealed that ID diversity affected citations indirectly through saves, URLs through saves and usages, and Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) through saves, views and usages, although the effects were positive yet weak. This study is significant in demonstrating that DAS, as one of the institutional mechanisms for research data disclosure, can positively contribute to the diffusion of scholarly outputs.
UNESCO. UNESCO recommendation on open science. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949 (2021, accessed 31 August 2025).
4.
ScharesE.Impact of the 2022 OSTP memo: a bibliometric analysis of US federally funded publications, 2017–2021. Quant Sci Stud2023; 4(1): 1–21.
5.
SpichtingerD.Data management plans in Horizon 2020: what beneficiaries think and what we can learn from their experience. Open Res Eur2022; 1: 42.
6.
TekkalmazMGürelE.HORIZON EUROPE RIA PROJECT – CULTURATI Deliverable D1.5 Data Management Plan 2, https://aperta.ulakbim.gov.tr/record/274394 (2025, accessed 31 August 2025).
7.
BloomTGanleyEWinkerMA.Data access for the open access literature: PLOS’s data policy. PLoS Med2014; 11: e1001607.
8.
GrantRHrynaszkiewiczI.The impact on authors and editors of introducing data availability statements at Nature journals. Int J Digit Curation2018; 13(1): 195–203.
9.
TaichmanDBSahniPPinborgA, et al. Data sharing statements for clinical trials. BMJ2017; 357: j2372.
10.
BradleySH.Data availability statements: a little credit, but not much. BMJ2023; 380: o3047.
11.
TenopirCAllardSDouglassK, et al. Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE2011; 6(6): e21101.
12.
HoutkoopBLChambersCMacleodM, et al. Data sharing in psychology: a survey on barriers and preconditions. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci2018; 1(1): 70–85.
Bond-LambertyB.Data sharing and scientific impact in eddy covariance research. J Geophys Res Biogeosci2018; 123(5): 1695–1702.
15.
ColavizzaGHrynaszkiewiczIStadenI, et al. The citation advantage of linking publications to research data. PLoS ONE2020; 15(4): e0230416.
16.
ColavizzaGCadwalladerLLaFlammeM, et al. An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations. PLoS ONE2024; 19(1): e0294635.
17.
GambleJMTraynorRLGruzdA, et al. Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: a case study of a CNODES drug-safety article. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2020; 29(suppl. 1): 93–102.
18.
LlewellynNMWeberAAFitzpatrickAM, et al. Big splashes & ripple effects: a narrative review of the short- & long-term impact of publications supported by an NIH CTSA pediatrics program. Transl Pediatr2022; 11(3): 411–422.
19.
BrowerDNarlockM.Persistent identifiers and research data. In: 2023 ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL), Santa Fe, NM, 26–30 June 2023, pp. 269–270. New York: ACM.
20.
LiuJ.Digital object identifier (DOI) under the context of research data librarianship. J Esci Librariansh2021; 10(2): e1191.
21.
WimalaratneSJutyNKunzeJ, et al. Uniform resolution of compact identifiers for biomedical data. Sci Data2017; 5: 180029.
22.
FedererLM.Long-term availability of data associated with articles in PLoS One. PLoS ONE2022; 17(8): e0272845.
23.
AnBGByunJY.A study on the data availability statements of researchers affiliated with Korean institutions: focusing on the PLOS ONE. J Korean Soc Inf Manag2023; 40(1): 225–258.
24.
FedererLMBelterCWJoubertDJ, et al. Data sharing in PLOS ONE: an analysis of data availability statements. PLoS ONE2018; 13(5): e0194768.
25.
BrodyTHarnadSCarrL.Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2006; 57(8): 1060–1072.
HuangWWangPWuQ.A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals. PLoS ONE2018; 13(4): e0194962.
28.
HausteinSPetersISugimotoCR, et al. Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2014; 65(4): 656–669.
29.
PiwowarHADayRSFridsmaDB.Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS ONE2007; 2(3): e308.
30.
HennekenEAAccomazziA.Linking to data: effect on citation rates in astronomy. arXiv, 15November 2011, https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3618
31.
SearsJR. Data sharing effect on article citation rate in paleoceanography. AGU Fall Meet Abstr2011; 1: 1628.
32.
PiwowarHAVisionTJ.Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ2013; 1: e175.
33.
DorchSDrachenTMEllegaardO.The data sharing advantage in astrophysics. Proc Int Astron Union2015; 11(A29A): 172–175.
34.
FuJTianLZhangC, et al. Opening research data contributes to the citations of related research articles: evidence from Data in Brief. Learn Publ2023; 36(3): 259–269.
35.
HuLTBentlerPM.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling1999; 6(1): 1–55.
36.
De WinterJCF. The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics2015; 102(2): 1773–1779.
