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

Tue Sep 14 13:53:42 UTC 2010

I've gone back to this, as my FAQ develops. The problem is, I think, that there is a significant difference between making data open once the research is published (or as part of publication), and making data either open or even available during a project, in advance of publication. FoI does bring the risk that researchers may be forced to make their data available before they have finished the research, even to their rivals. (Of course there are exemptions which may be able to be invoked in some circumstances.)

The "Open Science" approach such as Cameron Neylon advocates is closer to this, if perhaps a bit more extreme. (By this I mean that I understand Open Science to want to put all data in the open as it is gathered, rather than making some data identified by a requester available under FoI when asked.)

So is there a persuasive case for making data available during your research, before publication?

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

On 3 Sep 2010, at 22:11, Heather Piwowar wrote:

> Thanks Dorothea!  
> 
> That study was also published in PLoS ONE, in case you prefer a non-dissertation citation:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
> 
> Similar, but earlier and with a way cooler title, is Gleditsch and Strand's "Posting Your Data: Will You Be Scooped or Will You Be Famous?"
> http://www.prio.no/Research-and-Publications/Publication/?oid=55406
> 
> Chris, another argument I've often heard: publicly archive your data so that you can find it again later, yourself :)
> 
> There's also lots to be said about "being the change you want to see," supplemented with stats on the frequency and implications of data withholding, etc.  Let me know if you want refs, or you can brave a mongo list of refs on data sharing/withholding at Mendeley.  I have many relevant papers tagged with "motivation" or similar.
> 
> You might also find something useful in the latter part of these presentations? (1, 2)
> 
> Let me know if I can be of more help....
> 
> Heather
> Heather Piwowar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DataONE postdoc with NESCent and Dryad 
> remote from Dept of Zoology, UBC, Vancouver Canada 
> hpiwowar at nescent.org 
> http://researchremix.org
> @researchremix
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Dorothea Salo <dorothea.salo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe try this:
> 
> “Publicly available data was significantly (p=0.006) associated with a
> 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor,
> date of publication, and author country of origin.” Piwowar, Heather.
> “Foundational studies for measuring the impact, prevalence, and
> patterns of publicly sharing biomedical research data.” Dissertation,
> University of Pittsburgh, 2010.
> 
> I just popped it into a slideshow of mine. I've also seen people use
> the recent NYT story about data-sharing and Alzheimer's, though it's
> not quite a paradigm case because the data there weren't fully open.
> 
> Dorothea
> 