[open-science] Fame, glory and neglect in meta-analyses
ross.mounce at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 08:33:58 UTC 2011
> > Is this within the remit / related to Open Science? I hope so...
Great! I've been conscious I've been rather quiet on this list so far.
As a meta-analyst myself I'm genuinely concerned that when I come to
publish my analyses - the original authors who in some cases even took
the time themselves to send me their datasets and explain things about
them to; just won't get the credit they deserve, even though I myself
am extremely happy and really *want* to give them that deserved
Original authors of primary datasets are the very lifeblood of my
research, so I'd go to great lengths to keep them happy with how I use
& cite their data.
But depending on which journal I submit to, it seems thoroughly out of
my hands; even as an author it seems I have little control over this
problem (another hangover from the age of Paper-only publishing?)!
Needless to say as a very early career researcher I can't afford to
pick and choose where I publish for the sake of issues like this -
even if I am fully cognisant of them.
Gold OA, or not. Proper credit giving citations, or not. Open Data, or
not... It seems scholarly authors have a lot of choices, and it's all
too easy to passively choose "not" (~lazy / bad) atm. :S
Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
University of Bath
4 South Building, Lab 1.07
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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...
>> 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
> 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
> 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
More information about the open-science