Open and reproducible research in materials science relies on the availability of data, code, and common metadata standards. Journal research data policies (RDPs) remain a primary mechanism by which publication norms are defined and enforced. We survey RDPs for 171 materials science journals spanning 17 publishers, using an expanded coding framework that captures both data-and-code sharing behavior as well as refereeing standards. We find clear signs of progress in comparison to earlier research on RDPs: nearly all journals provide an RDP, and most mention data availability statements. However, enforceable requirements remain uncommon, public deposition of underlying data is rarely mandatory, and FAIR publication is typically encouraged rather than required. Expectations for research software are substantially less developed than those for data, with limited attention to versioning and persistent identifiers, dependency disclosure, reproducible execution environments, or software quality practices. Aggregating the findings on policy features into an open research data score reveals pronounced heterogeneity across journals. Neither impact factor nor access model reliably predicts policy strength. Double-coding further shows that more complex policies and stricter policies can be more challenging to interpret consistently, and we highlight challenges in consistent RDP encoding across studies. Lastly, we conclude with recommended best practice directions for the future.

翻译：材料科学中的开放与可重复性研究依赖于数据、代码及通用元数据标准的可用性。期刊研究数据政策（RDPs）仍是定义和执行出版规范的主要机制。我们使用扩展的编码框架对涵盖17家出版商的171种材料科学期刊的RDPs进行调查，该框架同时捕获数据与代码共享行为及审阅标准。与早期RDP研究相比，我们观察到明显进展：几乎所有期刊都提供了RDP，且多数提及数据可用性声明。然而，可执行的要求仍然罕见，基础数据的公开存放很少是强制性的，FAIR出版通常被鼓励而非要求。对研究软件的期望远不及数据完善，版本控制与持久标识符、依赖项披露、可复现执行环境或软件质量实践方面的关注有限。将政策特征的发现汇总为开放研究数据得分，揭示了期刊间的显著异质性。影响因子与访问模式均不能可靠预测政策强度。进一步的双重编码表明，更复杂和更严格的政策可能更难以一致解读，我们强调了跨研究进行RDP一致编码的挑战。最后，我们为未来推荐了最佳实践方向。