Science Data Availability Statement: What Science Requires (2026)

The Science-acceptable DAS structure includes: specific repository name, repository DOI or accession number, access conditions (open vs controlled), embargo dates if applicable, and contact for restricted-access requests. For broad-impact research submissions, Science reviewers expect the DAS to be specific enough that a third-party reader can independently verify access without contacting the authors.

"All raw data underlying the analyses reported in this manuscript are available at Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.XXXXXX) under a CC-BY 4.0 license. Custom analysis code is available at GitHub (github.com) with a Zenodo deposit (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.YYYYYY). Patient-level data, where used, are available through the controlled-access dbGaP repository (study accession phsXXXXXX.v1.p1) subject to data-use agreement with the original consenting institution."

What does NOT pass Science's desk-screen:

• "Data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request." (Too vague)

• "All data are in the manuscript and supplementary materials." (Insufficient if the data could be deposited)

• "Data will be made available upon publication." (Embargo without explicit terms)

• Empty DAS without explanation. (Editorial query)

Source: Manusights internal review of Science-targeted submissions, 2025 cohort.

Generic "available on request" language. Science editors flag this as the most common failure pattern. Check whether your DAS is specific enough

Repository named but no DOI/accession. A repository name without a persistent identifier doesn't pass desk-screen. Check your DAS specificity

Controlled-access language without conditions. Restricted data without explicit access terms triggers an editorial query. Check your controlled-access framing

Science's editorial culture is shaped by three forces: the broad-impact research reviewer pool's expectations, the editor-in-chief's top-line triage philosophy, and the publisher policy framework. For data availability statement, this translates into specific desk-screen patterns. Science authors who internalize these patterns before drafting tend to clear editorial review on first attempt. Authors who treat data availability statement as a checklist exercise rather than an editorial-culture conversation face longer review rounds.

The named editorial-culture quirk: Science Board of Reviewing Editors (BoRE) screens for cross-disciplinary impact in the first 7-10 days; subfield-bounded papers get desk-rejected fast. The named failure pattern that consistently predicts revision rounds: manuscripts that require specialist translation in the discussion get desk-rejected by BoRE within 7 days. These are testable against your manuscript before submission, not theoretical concerns.

Source: Manusights internal review of Science-targeted submissions, 2025 cohort.

Manusights submission-corpus signal for Science. Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to Science and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is Science Board of Reviewing Editors (BoRE) screens for cross-disciplinary impact in the first 7-10 days; subfield-bounded papers get desk-rejected fast. In our analysis of anonymized Science-targeted submissions,

Science's author guidelines describe the rules for broad-impact research submissions. This guide describes the editorial culture behind the rules at Science specifically. Authors targeting Science who read only the official guidelines often submit manuscripts that technically comply but fail at editorial review because they miss the broad-impact research editorial culture, particularly the named pattern: manuscripts that require specialist translation in the discussion get desk-rejected by BoRE within 7 days.

The pre-submission reviews documented in our the page's submission examples surface these Science-specific patterns. SciRev community surveys for Science confirm them from the author-experience side. Together, the guidelines + editorial-culture lens + community signal create a more complete picture for Science than any single source.

The named editorial-culture quirk for Science is Science Board of Reviewing Editors (BoRE) screens for cross-disciplinary impact in the first 7-10 days; subfield-bounded papers get desk-rejected fast. The named failure pattern for data availability statement: manuscripts that require specialist translation in the discussion get desk-rejected by BoRE within 7 days.

Evidence reviewed 2026-08-27: We rechecked the current official sources listed below and separated their published requirements or metrics from Manusights editorial judgment. A useful statement lets a reader distinguish openly deposited data, controlled access, code, materials, and justified limitations without searching the manuscript.

• the page's worked examples (2025 cohort)