Research Data Management Plan Template
Three documents and three sheets that check what each dataset's consent or agreement actually allows before the plan promises to share it.
Free download · No account needed
Consent Constraint Map
Same study, same approval, different answer
| Dataset | Sharing Status |
|---|---|
| Household survey, de-identified | Public deposit |
| State health department extract | Not shared |
The second row is blocked by the department's own data use agreement, not by anything participant consent says.
NIH's 2026 Data Management and Sharing Plan format asks one yes or no on whether data will be shared, plus a single 300-word paragraph, Element 4, to hold every limitation across the whole project. Johns Hopkins' own walkthrough of the DMPTool, the guide researchers are pointed to for writing that paragraph, describes three free-text boxes for the whole plan's access and reuse considerations, however many differently shaped datasets the project actually produces.
A study rarely produces one kind of data. This pack is three documents and three sheets built around Consent Constraint Map. It checks what each dataset's own consent language, or any third-party data use agreement governing it, actually allows before Data Management Plan or Sharing Statement states a sharing answer for it. A limitation that applies to one dataset out of four does not get generalized to the other three, or dropped because a single paragraph had no room left for it.
In one worked example, a household-access study across three counties produces four datasets under one IRB approval. 450 survey responses are cleared for public deposit, and 22 staff interviews are cleared for publication excerpts only. A travel-time matrix is cleared for county-level aggregates only, and a state health department's linked extract, covering 410 of those households, is blocked from redistribution entirely by the department's own data use agreement. Four rows, four answers, the same discipline an ethics application runs section by section before a board ever sees it.
What's in the pack
Dataset Register sheet
Every dataset the study collects or receives, including a linked administrative extract that arrived through an agreement rather than a consent form, with its format, its record count and who is named in it.
Consent Constraint Map sheet
One row per dataset, grading what its own consent language or any governing agreement actually allows: public deposit, restricted access, aggregate only, or not shared, with the specific reason named rather than assumed.
Deposit Checklist sheet
De-identification and small-cell suppression confirmed against the actual data before a repository, standard or licence is chosen, the same discipline a codebook applies to a variable rather than a whole file.
Data Management Plan doc
Built against the current funder element structure, with the sharing answer written dataset by dataset rather than rounded to whichever single word is easiest to submit. The standalone version a grant proposal's own one-page plan only sketches before its datasets are actually defined.
Sharing Statement doc
The publication-facing paragraph a journal's data availability section asks for, matched to Consent Constraint Map at the moment of drafting rather than copied from the funder's plan.
Retention Note doc
A retention period by record type, since a raw identifiable file and its de-identified deposit copy are rarely owed to the same party for the same length of time.
Check the constraint map before you promise the share
The standing space rule every prompt reads first: no sentence in the plan, the statement or the note may state a sharing status with no matching row behind it.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or download it
Open the pack in River and the agent builds the register and the constraint map with you, or download the three Word documents and three CSV sheets instantly, filled in with the worked example.
- 2
Send what the study actually collects
Every dataset, its format, roughly how many records, and what the consent language or any data-sharing agreement says about it specifically, not a general impression of what the study promised.
- 3
Check the constraint before drafting the promise
Consent Constraint Map grades each dataset public deposit, restricted, aggregate only, or not shared, with the governing document named, before Data Management Plan or Sharing Statement is written.
- 4
Run the deposit checklist before anything ships
Only a dataset the constraint map actually clears advances past it, and the checklist is not complete until a real accession number exists and is copied into Sharing Statement.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. Download the whole pack as Word documents and CSV sheets with no signup and no credit card. Edit with AI is a separate, optional path that has the agent build the register and the plan with you. The template library holds every other pack this research catalog ships.
What format are the downloaded files?
Word documents for Data Management Plan, Sharing Statement and Retention Note, and CSV for Dataset Register, Consent Constraint Map and Deposit Checklist, in one zip. They open in Word, Excel, Google Docs and Sheets with nothing to convert.
Does this work for NSF as well as NIH?
Yes. NSF's own Data Management and Sharing Plan tool is organized by data or research product category, and requires any exception to sharing to be justified within it. Consent Constraint Map produces exactly that justification, dataset by dataset, whichever funder's form it ends up in.
What if a dataset was never covered by a consent form at all?
Common with linked administrative data, and Dataset Register is built to catch it. A data use agreement with the outside party that supplied it still governs, independently of consent, and Consent Constraint Map names that agreement as the basis rather than leaving the row blank.
Why can a data use agreement block sharing even when participants consented to it?
Because the participant was never a party to that agreement. A state agency or a partner organization can restrict redistribution of its own records on terms that consent cannot override, and the stricter of the two governs regardless of which one a plan's author assumed controlled.
Does this replace the ethics application my study also needs?
No. An IRB or ethics application covers what a board must approve before data collection starts. This pack governs what happens to the data once it exists, for the funder's plan and the eventual publication, and the two documents are checked against each other, not merged into one.
How is 'available upon reasonable request' different from what this pack writes?
That sentence is not a policy, since it names no format, no access terms and no reviewer. Sharing Statement instead states, per dataset, what is available, where, and under what terms, or plainly that nothing is available and why, which is what a reader can actually act on.
Find out which of your datasets the plan can actually promise
Send what the study collects, dataset by dataset. Consent Constraint Map checks each one before Data Management Plan or Sharing Statement states an answer for it.
Edit with AI