[open-science] Data Watch

[Jack Park]

I would be curious what is meant by "aggregate" in this context. I am
wondering whether the term "federate" fits here, by which I mean that,
when one aggregates, one also organizes according to the topic(s) in
play. Am I close?

Jack

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Laurent Gatto <lg390 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 7 June 2013 19:32, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I'm obviously very supportive of DataWatch.  I think that some of our
>> activity may be per-journal rather than per-paper (e.g. when Neuroscience
>> said they no longer required suppdata). DataWatch should then challenge the
>
> An maybe also aggregate at the level of topic/field? Different
> communities have quite different habits and views on the topic of data
> sharing.
>
>> policy rather than the instance. And there may be areas where we can give
>> POSITIVE acclaim where a journal adopts a data pub policy.
>>
>> Assuming that DataWatch takes off then it gives much more likelihood of
>> getting responses from editors and publishers and collating policies.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're familiar with the excellent blog Retraction Watch run by
>>> Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> In an blog post in 2012 [1], Jonathan Eisen suggested having a Data Watch
>>> site in the same vein. We discussed something similar in the Open Science
>>> Working Group at various times previously.
>>>
>>> We had considered using it to discuss both invalidated datasets (more like
>>> retraction watch) and data sharing cases where data is simply not available
>>> to back up published research, particularly where researchers refuse to
>>> share data despite agreements with funders or publishers to do so on
>>> request. The most well known examples recently being Reinhart-Rogoff [2] and
>>> (many) clinical trials [3].
>>>
>>> It would be interesting in the case of datasets found to be invalid to
>>> classify where the problem arose - mislabelling of columns, coding errors,
>>> data gaps?
>>>
>>> If you're interested in working on something like this (and the exact
>>> formulation of this is still very much up for discussion - all thoughts
>>> welcome!), then speak now and we can set up a group of founding editors :)
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/draft-post-cleanup-3-open-knowledge.html
>>> [2]
>>> http://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/22/reinhart-rogoff-revisited-why-we-need-open-data-in-economics/
>>> [3] http://www.alltrials.net/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laurent Gatto
> - http://proteome.sysbiol.cam.ac.uk/lgatto/
> Cambridge Centre for Proteomics
> - http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/proteomics
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science