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

Tue Sep 14 14:12:50 UTC 2010

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Chris Rusbridge <c.rusbridge at googlemail.com
> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
It's important to stress that the philosophy may justifiably vary
considerably between domains. My feeling is that Open Science is generally
likely to be undertaken when there is already a community of involved
scientists who are likely to be interested in the data as it comes out and
who are already adjusting to giving appropriate credit to the creator. I
think this is most likely in multidisciplinary fields, in areas where there
is a perceived benefit to the community in early release of information, or
where the data producer is, in some way, acting for the benefot of the
community. Typical examples might be the systematic collection of data
through a nationally or interantionally financed organisation.

In an area where the reward structure favours closed research competing
towards a single goal and prizes for the winner, then it's much less likely
that anyone will publish research data as it happens.

There may be an intermediate area where a scientist believes that their data
may be of interest to others in complementary fields and where the risk of
being scooped can be balanced against the benefit of enhanced scientific
discovery. In a sense this is a blind market - it's possible that it could
be developed into a market where there is active matching of people with
data to share.

If the ethos of data sharing is valued by funders then it's also possible
that there is value in publishing some data (maybe not all) or if metrics
for data re-use are developed which allow for early release then this may
also be a positive strategy.

P.

--
> Chris Rusbridge
> Mobile: +44 791 7423828
> Email: c.rusbridge at gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
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/20100914/3017c9fc/attachment-0001.html>