[open-science] Fame, glory and neglect in meta-analyses

Tue Aug 16 07:20:44 UTC 2011

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:

> Forgive me if you only see this as tangentially-related to Open Science,
> but in my opinion, the proper accreditation of data providers (via
> citation or some other value-metric) is integral to the feasibility &
> promotion of free and Open data sharing.]
>

> Is this within the remit / related to Open Science? I hope so...
>

Absolutely

> Is there anything that can be done from the publisher side of things?
>

With some publishers, yes. I would expect. I can't speak for them directly
but several are promoting Openness and open Data and this seems completely
mainstream.

With other publishers where "enduser" == "the purchasing office in a
university" this is probably only seen as an additional cost which reduces
shareholder value.

> It seems like this paper is perhaps unfairly putting the burden of
> responsibility on the authors of meta-analyses, rather than on
> publishers who I imagine could easily (surely?) let ISI count ESM/SI
> citations. Why does this issue even exist in 2011 (the Digitial
> Age)!?!?
>

Oh dear, please don't get me started. Because the motivation of many
publishers is not to serve the process of publication but to generate income
and cuts costs. Any innovation will raise costs and not necessarily generate
income so why should they do it? The main motivation is "when everyone else
does it"

>
>

-- 
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/20110816/1634a51e/attachment-0001.html>