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 nearly exclusive) serve researchers from a particular discipline or subject category.
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. That speaks to datadryad.org's origins in evolutionary biology and ecology, but perhaps not to its future as it recasts 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, although generalist repositories zenodo.org and figshare.com also feature highly, and github.com features when we broaden out from Earth Sciences to consider the Earth & Environmental Sciences 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 DOIs. This tells us something about precision and familiarity with data sharing in Statistics where more DOIs resolve than don't (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 here researchgate.net makes an appearance as a destination researchers use 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 DOIs. Again, as with Statisics above, this tells us something about precision and familiarity with data sharing in Oncology & Radiotherapy where more DOIs resolve than don't.  Domains like nih.gov also host multiple services and repositories to support data sharing, and so for these our analysis does not deliver information that is as quite precise as we would like.
A very small number of DASs were analysed from manuscripts submitted to Wiley Physical Sciences journals, and these include links to just two domains: nih.gov and usgs.gov. We speculate that this might be because: Researchers in physical sciences create different types of data that are more challenging to share, or do not have repositories that are suited for sharing; researchers in physical sciences work for corporations where they are not encouraged or allowed to share data; Wiley journals in physical sciences do not make DASs a requirement on submission. Given the strength and depth of the Wiley journal portfolio in the  physical sciences this requires further investigation.

Conclusion

Our aim with this study was to use data to develop resources that could support researchers who want or need to share new data, by showing them where researchers choose to share similar data. Similarly, we aimed to use the same analysis to support journals 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, which 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}. It is our hope that 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.