Data Sharing Policy

Transparency with appropriate protections

The Bridge Review encourages sharing the data, code, instruments, and other materials needed to understand and assess a study, where lawful, ethical, and practicable. Public sharing is not required when it would violate consent, confidentiality, intellectual property, contractual obligations, community governance, or other legitimate restrictions. Editors assess whether the available evidence supports the claims.

Data availability statement

Every research manuscript must include a data availability statement. State what materials exist, where they can be accessed, the relevant link or identifier, and any restrictions. If controlled access is offered, identify the responsible contact or repository, eligibility conditions, and approval process. “Available on request” should not be used without explaining the conditions and who can authorize release. State when no new data were generated, including for conceptual work where appropriate.

Example statements include: “The de-identified data and analysis code are available at [REPOSITORY LINK].” “The data are not publicly available because participant consent does not permit public release; requests may be considered by [AUTHORIZED CONTACT] subject to [CONDITIONS].” “No new data were generated or analyzed for this article.” Use only the statement that accurately reflects the study.

Repositories and sensitive information

Where sharing is appropriate, use a trusted disciplinary, institutional, or general repository with stable links, documentation, and access controls where needed. Identify software and instrument versions and explain code or file formats sufficiently for interpretation. A CC BY article license does not automatically license an underlying dataset or software; specify separate terms as appropriate.

Remove direct and indirect identifiers and assess re-identification risks. Qualitative transcripts and small community datasets may remain identifiable after names are removed. Do not publicly deposit identifiable participant records, signed consent forms, private student or employment records, or other protected information without a lawful and ethical basis. Explain legitimate restrictions to editors rather than bypassing them.

Editorial verification and retention

Editors may request supporting materials securely to assess reliability, subject to the same protections. Authors should retain records according to their institution, funder, consent terms, and applicable law. If restrictions prevent adequate verification, editors may request narrower claims or decline the work. The journal does not serve as a confidential raw-data repository. Report unavailable data links or materially inaccurate availability statements to editor@bridgereview.org.