[open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7

Tue Mar 23 06:35:43 UTC 2010

The original idea behind the Panton Principles was that we sidestep this
issue. The key point being that where there are privacy issues (or other
issues) you simply do not choose to publish the data. The PP are not, at
least as far as the bullet points are concerned, to dictate when, how, or if
data are published.

The PP are intended to be applied after the decision has been taken to
publish the data. And by "publish" we meant to be extremely general - hence
the addition I made the other day to the FAQ. I think it is important to be
clear on this point because the term "publish" often means something very
different to different people. And for many researchers it explicitly
doesn't include "make available on the web".

Cheers

Cameron

On 23/03/2010 13:26, "daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com"
<daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Dear Iain,

on the first point, what do you think of the current
> phrasing
"Respecting the privacy of research subjects should be an
> integral
part of the decision whether to make the data Open."?

>
>With kind regards,

Daniel

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Iain
> Hrynaszkiewicz
<Iain.Hrynaszkiewicz at biomedcentral.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> Writing from a publisher that is keen to make data available, I'd like
> to
> point out two sets of guidance relevant to some matters arising from
> the
> pirate pad discussions on the Panton Principles.
>
> Firstly, the issue of
> protecting privacy in human subject research. This
> is a major barrier to the
> sharing of clinical information and I wonder
> if it is being glossed over in
> the FAQ (13). Some practical guidance on
> openly sharing clinical data was
> published in the BMJ earlier this year,
> for example:
>
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan28_1/c181
>
> Secondly, applying PP
> prior to publication. At BioMed Central, for
> example, we encourage openly
> sharing data before formal publication [in
> a peer-reviewed journal] and
> encourage editors to not preclude open
> projects from publication.
>
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/duplicatepublication
> So perhaps PP
> should be applied more uniformly, without the need to
> clarify what
> 'publication' is.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Iain
>
>
> Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
>
> Managing Editor
> BioMed Central
> Floor 6, 236 Gray's Inn Road
> London, WC1X
> 8HL
> T: +44 (0)20 3192 2175
> F: +44 (0)20 3192 2011
> W:
> www.biomedcentral.com/
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>
> [mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of
>
> open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
> Sent: 18 March 2010 12:00
> To:
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue
> 7
>
> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
>      
>  open-science at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World
> Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>      
>  open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the
> list at
>        open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please
> edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of
> open-science digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. FAQs for the Panton
> Principles and Open Data (Peter Murray-Rust)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:43:47 +0000
> From: Peter Murray-Rust
> <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> Subject: [open-science] FAQs for the Panton Principles and
> Open Data
> To: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID:
>    
>    <67fd68331003170943h3ab178d5y64f9086c3af5c597 at mail.gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> We are talking to a variety
> of editors and publishers who are keen to
> make
> data "open available" and
> in many cases mandate it as part of the
> scientific
> process. It's clear
> that although PP are (I hope) fairly
> self-explanatory
> the implications
> (licences, buttons, "public domain", community norms,
> etc.)
> are unclear
> and need careful explanation. One way to do this is through
> FAQs
> and we
> (Rufus, Cameron, Jonathan + me) are asking for the help of the
> OpenScience
> list to provide useful communal answers. I'll post the FAQs
> -
> feel welcome
> to add to them but not TOO many - and ask you to create
> answers. There is a
> pirate pad at:
>
> http://piratepad.net/LgLRcGLw35
>
> Please use to edit,
> discuss, hack etc.
>
> We will appreciate rapid feedback as we hope to promote
> this to
> attendees at
> the AmerChemicalSoc (ACS) next week.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of
> Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL:
> 
> <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100317/a4e49
>
> f69/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
>
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
> End of open-science
> Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7
> *******************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
>
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>

--
> 
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen

_____________________________
> __________________
open-science mailing
> list
open-science at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-s
> cience

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.