Of note, is the distinction between best practice in data sharing of crystallographic cf. other data types in organic chemistry. An established culture of data sharing in crystallography has developed from establishment of a centralised repository and the CIF common standard, adopted in 1990. Requirements for the production and sharing of crystallography data are clear and consistent, and researchers are often supported by staff in crystallography services, where the data are curated and provided to researchers in appropriate formats for sharing, and in many cases the crystallographers also do the work of obtaining a checkCIF report and submitting the data to CCDC. The researcher need only supply Accession numbers on publication. For other data types, researchers are on their own. We return to our earlier point that, following the example of crystallography, a 'FAIR sharing' culture for other data types requires standard formats and centralised repositories. Support for researchers to reduce the burden of curation would encourage best practice, and we foresee a change in the culture and funding of analytical services, to involve data curation by NMR and mass spectrometry services that are typically staffed and embedded as distinct units within chemistry departments, to mirror the practice of crystallography services.