It is clear from Figure \ref{692056} that github.com is not only used by computer science researchers but by researchers publishing in a diverse range of disciplines. We speculate that this reflects the increasingly important role across the research spectrum of computation and data science  to handle the analysis of big data \cite{frontier}, and the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of research.  Figure \ref{692056} also shows that in Social & Behavioral Sciences data sharing is dominated by osf.io, the Open Science Framework from the Center for Open Science. Interestingly, osf.io does not describe itself as specifically for social and behavioral scientists; it seems the Center for Open Science's roots in psychology run deep. Other results for top WOL Level 1 categories (Life Sciences; Social & Behavioral Sciences; Earth & Environmental Sciences; Medicine; and Business, Economics, Finance & Accounting) show the success of repositories or domains that exclusively (or predominantly) serve researchers from a particular discipline or subject category; some of these are discussed below.  
Figure \ref{762092} shows the dominance of datadryad.org in Ecology, indeed across the Life Sciences: DASs that link to datadryad.org are almost exclusively in the Life Sciences ( Figure \ref{692056}). This speaks to datadryad.org's origins in evolutionary biology and ecology, and to its future across Life Sciences and perhaps beyond: datadryad.org has recast itself as a general-purpose data repository. 
Figure \ref{802504} shows specialist domains serving data sharing in Earth Sciences, namely usgs.gov, noaa.gov, and pangaea.de. Generalist repositories zenodo.org and figshare.com also feature highly, and github.com features when we broaden out from Earth Sciences WOL Level 2 category  to consider the Earth & Environmental Sciences WOL Level 1 category in general (Figure \ref{692056}). 
Figure \ref{170316} shows that github.com dominates data sharing in Statistics. In fact, github.com scores higher than unresolvable doi.org links for Stastics DASs. This tells us something about precision and familiarity with data sharing in Statistics where more doi.org links resolve than do not (a pattern not seen in Ecology, Earth Sciences, or Economics, Figures \ref{762092}, Figure \ref{802504}, or Figure \ref{792929}). 
Figure \ref{792929} shows that in Economics worldbank.org is the most common domain. For the first time in this analysis researchgate.net, most commonly referred to as a professional network for science, makes an appearance; our analysis suggests that Economics researchers use it to share new data.
Figure \ref{144977} reports data for Oncology & Radiotherapy, where top the domains are nih.gov, cancer.gov, iarc.fr, and clinicalstudydatarequest.com. The first three of these domains score higher than unresolvable doi.org links. Again, as with Statisics above, this tells us something about precision and familiarity with data sharing in Oncology & Radiotherapy where more doi.org links resolve than do not. Domains like nih.gov host multiple services and repositories to support data sharing; for these our analysis does not deliver information that is as quite precise as we would like.  

Conclusion

Our aim with this study was to use data to develop useful resources for researchers who want or need to share new data, by showing them where researchers choose to share similar data. Similarly, we aimed to support journal editors who want to recommend repositories and data sharing services to authors based on evidence. We have provided detailed information about frequently used domains and repositories across research disciplines and subject areas. These can be used as directional advice and inspiration, both for research authors and journal editors. What we have provided here could be used in combination with other resources, like FAIRsharing.org and its project to identify criteria that matter for repository selection \cite{matter} and like CoreTrust Seal and ELIXIR Core Data Resources \cite{elixir}. These resources together will help facilitate a deeper understanding of best practices around data sharing, reporting standards, and data repositories.     

Data availability statement

Processed research data are in Table \ref{133180}. Beyond that, data from originally submitted DASs are not shared, for the same reasons described in our previous study \cite{Graf}.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest

All authors are employed by Wiley and benefit from the company's success.