QAIRU Journal requires a Data Availability Statement in every peer-reviewed article and sets out the accepted statement types, the expectations for code and machine-learning artefacts, and the limits that apply to personal and licensed data.
Every Research Article, Review Article and Short Communication published in QAIRU Journal must contain a Data Availability Statement. The statement carries the heading "Data Availability Statement" and is placed immediately before the reference list. A manuscript submitted without one is returned to the authors at the editorial check, before peer review begins.
The statement must be specific. A sentence that names no repository, no identifier and no reason does not meet this requirement and is returned in the same way.
Data and code that underpin the reported results should be available to readers, unless there is a legitimate reason why they cannot be. In the areas this journal covers — artificial intelligence and machine learning, robotics and intelligent systems, applied AI, and computational methods and high-performance computing — a claim is worth what another group can do with it. The reproducibility of a result is part of its value, not an administrative addition to it.
The journal does not require that all data be public. It requires that readers be told, in the article itself, what exists, where it is held, and on what terms they can obtain it.
Choose the type that describes the work accurately. More than one may apply; in that case combine them in a single statement.
| Statement type | When it applies | Model wording |
|---|---|---|
| Public repository | The data are deposited in a repository that issues a persistent identifier | "The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in [repository] at [DOI or URL], accession number [identifier], under the [licence] licence." |
| Data in the article | All data are contained in the article and its supplementary files | "All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary files." |
| Available from the author on request | The data exist but are not deposited, and there is a stated reason | "The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available because [specific reason]." |
| Restricted access | Access is controlled by a body other than the authors | "The data supporting the findings of this study are available under restricted access from [body that grants access]. Access is granted to [category of applicant] subject to [conditions]; requests are submitted at [address or URL]." |
| No new data | The study analyses only published or third-party material | "No new data were created in this study." |
| Data cannot be shared | Legal, ethical or third-party restrictions prevent sharing in any form | "The data supporting the findings of this study cannot be shared because [specific legal, ethical or third-party restriction]." |
This wording is accepted only where the statement gives the reason why the data are not public; without a reason it is treated as incomplete.
The corresponding author then undertakes to honour reasonable requests from readers after publication. The undertaking runs with the article and does not lapse when the author changes institution. Authors who expect to be unable to answer such requests should deposit the data instead, or use the restricted-access or cannot-be-shared wording, whichever is accurate.
Authors are strongly encouraged to publish the code that produced the reported results. Where code is released, it should be deposited in a public repository with:
A link to a development branch without a tagged release does not satisfy this expectation: the state of the code at publication cannot be recovered from it.
For work on machine-learning systems, the manuscript states what is released and under what terms. Where they exist, the statement covers:
Where release is not possible, the manuscript states what a reader would need in order to reproduce the work. A description that would allow an independent group to rebuild the system is expected in place of the artefacts themselves. Declarations about the use of generative AI in preparing the manuscript are a separate matter and are governed by the generative AI policy.
Suitable repositories include general-purpose services such as Zenodo, Dryad and Figshare, and discipline-specific repositories where one exists for the field. Whichever is chosen, the repository must issue a persistent identifier and must be a managed archive rather than the authors' personal storage. Links to personal or laboratory web pages, cloud drives and file-sharing accounts are not accepted as the sole location of the data.
Personal data must not be deposited in open form. Where the study uses data about identifiable individuals, the authors either anonymise the data before deposit or place it under controlled access. Either route must be consistent with the ethical approvals obtained and with the informed consent given by the participants. The consent must cover the intended form of sharing; consent for the study alone does not authorise open release of the underlying records. See the publication ethics policy.
Where anonymisation would destroy the analytical value of the data, the correct route is controlled access through the body that holds the ethical approval, which the statement names.
Where the authors did not generate the data, the manuscript states the terms under which they obtained it: the source, the licence or agreement, and any restriction on redistribution. Authors must not redistribute a licensed dataset in breach of its terms, whether through a repository or as supplementary material. Where redistribution is not permitted, the statement gives the source from which a reader can obtain the data on the same terms.
The Data Availability Statement is published with the article and forms part of the record. A later refusal to provide data that the statement declared available, or the discovery that the declared repository holds nothing, is treated as a matter of record integrity. Depending on what is established, the outcome may be a correction, an expression of concern or, where the reported results cannot stand, a retraction. See corrections and retractions.
Reviewers may ask to see the data or the code while a manuscript is under assessment. Authors are expected to supply them, in anonymised form where the review is blinded, or to explain why they cannot. The handling editor may make deposit of the data or code, or a change to the Data Availability Statement, a condition of acceptance.
Formatting of the statement, of supplementary files and of the accompanying declarations is set out in the author guidelines.
Effective date: 2026-09-01 · Version: 1.0 · Questions: journal@qairu.edu.kz