[open-science] Brief persuasive case for data sharing?

[Chris Rusbridge]

Dear Open Science folks, I am helping JISC prepare a FAQ on the implications of Freedom of Information and Environmental Information legislation for researchers, particularly as regards requests for their own research data. One obvious question is "Why should I make my data available?". My current (weak) answer is:

"Most research is paid for by the public, and that leads to a presumption in favour of openness. Indeed, some supporters of Open Science would make all their data publicly available as (or very soon after) they are created. [Needs link here, inc to Panton Principles I think]

"Research funders and journal editors are both beginning to set policies in favour of making data available. Usually this applies to data from completed research, or supporting findings in publications. This is part of the general idea that science (and indeed all research) should be verifiable by others.

"A presumption in favour of openness is one thing, but the Freedom of Information Acts and Environmental Information Regulations are the law in the UK (there is slightly different legislation in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, the details of which we try to cover in other answers). As always with the law, the devil lies in the detail, so the general answer to whether you need to make information available to someone else is 'it depends…' "

Can you suggest improvements to this, preferably no more than doubling its length?

There will be many more questions in the FAQ, looking at various cases where one cannot share data (privacy, ethical concerns etc), and the exemptions (or exceptions) you can try if you really don't want to share (or not yet). But this is the main place to make a case FOR sharing.

Thanks for your help,

--
Chris Rusbridge
Consultant
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: c.rusbridge at gmail.com