An excerpt: Open your minds and share your results
An open approach is the best way to maximize the benefits of research for both scientists and the public, says Geoffrey Boulton
There is a compelling case for having open access to scientific papers, to enhance the efficacy and reach of scientific communication. But important though this is, the open-access debate has drawn attention away from a deeper issue that is at the heart of the scientific process: that of ‘open data’. In an attempt to focus much-needed attention on this subject, I chaired a group that produced Science as an Open Enterprise, a policy report from the Royal Society in London, published last week.
Open enquiry has been at the heart of science since the first scientific journals were printed in the seventeenth century. Publication of scientific theories — and the supporting experimental and observational data — permits others to identify errors, to reject or refine theories and to reuse data. Science’s capacity for self-correction comes from this openness to scrutiny and challenge.
…
In the Royal Society report, we argue that this procedure must become the norm, required by journals and accepted by the scientific community as mandatory. As scientists, we have some way to go to achieve this. A recent study of the 50 highest-impact journals in biomedicine showed that only 22 required specific raw data to be made available as a condition of publication. Only 40% of papers fully adhered to the policy and only 9% had deposited the full raw data online (A. A. Alsheikh-Ali et al. PLoS ONE 6, e24357; 2011).
We also need to be open towards fellow citizens. The massive impact of science on our collective and individual lives has decreased the willingness of many to accept the pronouncements of scientists unless they can verify the strength of the underlying evidence for themselves. The furore surrounding ‘Climategate’ — rooted in the resistance of climate scientists to accede to requests from members of the public for data underlying some of the claims of climate science — was in part a motivation for the Royal Society’s current report. It is vital that science is not seen to hide behind closed laboratory doors, but engages seriously with the public.
Full editorial at Nature here: http://www.nature.com/news/open-your-minds-and-share-your-results-1.10895
==============================================================
Public Availability of Published Research Data in High-Impact Journals
Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali, Waqas Qureshi, Mouaz H. Al-Mallah, John P. A. Ioannidis2,6,7,8,9*
Background
There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature.
Methods and Results
We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available.
Conclusion
A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.
================================================================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Related articles
- Royal Society urges era of open research data (blogs.nature.com)
- Open Knowledge Foundation: Opening up scientific data with CKAN (okfn.org)
- Published research should be free and open to all, says academic panel (independent.co.uk)
- Set science free from publishers’ paywalls (newscientist.com)
- Science ‘should be open to all’ (bbc.co.uk)
UPDATE: Steve McIntyre weighs in here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This would be the only reason to justify paywalls: for journals to maintain such a server that would hold this data in electronic form and provide it free of charge. The researchers themselves should also be required to hold paper or electronic raw data for a number of years (say 50) and agree to make such raw data available. I have no quarrel with a researcher charging for the costs incurred to copy that raw data and send it. Refusals should result in closed doors to further journal publication. And when I say data, that includes proprietary computer code used to crunch the numbers. Since public money is being used for this research, I believe this is a federal issue that requires political action in the house and senate to pass such a federal regulation. Public schools who want federal money, must adhere to mountains of regulations in order to use public funds. Researchers should also be under that thumb.
Finally!! What took Nature so long to reach this blindingly obvious conclusion? It’s unfortunate the blogoshpere had to drag them kicking and screaming to recommend doing the right thing. Now let’s see how many journals actually follow these recommendations.
We are witnessing a sea change within the scientific community.
The truth will set us free.
Actions speak louder than words.
I like the “highlights opportunities for improvement” bit. Puts a very positive spin on the conclusion. Very non-offensive and a clever choice of phrase.
Data storage is incredibly cheap these days and there is plenty of open source and freeware software available, so cost is not really an issue and hasn’t been an issue for quite some time. The data can easily be stored as XML files.
I like this part:
“Yet this, too, presents a problem. Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas. This cherry-picking is bad practice and should stop.”
I am very happy to see this subject is finally being addressed. It is about time!
Thanks to M&M and the others who have been raising a dust about the availability of data. Without you this subject would never have seen light of day and science would be much worse off down the road as “No Supporting Data” became the norm and entrenched through the years.
Elaine Benes responds: “Get out!!!”
I’ll believe when I see it.
In one sense it is sad that this post, and thread in general, has to be asserted. Clearly the implication is that science has become the stuff of secrecy and avarice. We’ll see how the Climate Druids respond, but I don’t have high hopes.
“Data on Request” invites reactions like the well known Phil Jones rejoinder!
It is time for researchers with integrity to shun submission to Journals that don’t make complete data sets available, to anyone, credentialed or not.
Paywall elimination is a next worthy goal, although in all honesty I don’t quite know how that paradigm can work.
Suggestions???
My first reaction was that they want to be seen to be first amongst the pack of warmist rats who are bolting at full tilt out of the sinking and burning ship of alarmism in a mad and desperate attempt to keep ahead of the rest of the vermin.
Or am I being unfair?
A fraction of the money our governments spend, building databases to retroactively snoop on us, would provide the greatest public information respurce the world has ever seen – a Library of Alexandria for the Digital Age.
It shows you what our governments real objectives are that they prefer to spend our money on things that destroy, impoverish, and enslave, rather than on those things that construct, enrich, and liberate.
A fraction of the money our governments spend, building databases to retroactively snoop on us, would provide the greatest public information respurce the world has ever seen – a Library of Alexandria for the Digital Age.
It shows what our governments real objectives are that they prefer to spend our money on things that destroy, impoverish, and enslave, rather than on those things that produce, enrich, and liberate.
Is this the Geoffrey Boulton who hid his UEA background prior to his involvement in the ‘independent’ CRU investigation, and ‘lost’ all the emails and notes associated with that inquiry, while still finding time to be the UK Government’s Chief Climate Change advisor?
http://youtu.be/2VFWYfBEtJ8
All sound convenient, slick, opportunistic, and hypocritical…
…Boulton will be remembered solely for his whitewashing dexterity.
Will Mike Mann call Nature a tool of the oil industry?
So let us now support Natures suggestions and welcome them to the camp of open data and debate, to the benefit of all, scientists and public alike. Let the data (and code) tell its own truths
more soylent green! says:
June 28, 2012 at 6:51 am
Data storage is incredibly cheap these days and there is plenty of open source and freeware software available, so cost is not really an issue and hasn’t been an issue for quite some time.
============
Not according to Forest et al.
“data archiving was not feasible given resources available in 2003”
However, in 2000 we were sailing the world with a low cost CD burner aboard. Each CD was capable of storing 650MB and blanks were about $2 each. We were mailing them back home from each port of call as off-site backup.
650MB is huge for storing numerical data such as used in climate models. It is about the same as 5 file cabinets of paper. For a few hundred dollars you could store the equivalent of mountains of paper in a small case.
Apparently the technology to archive data was lost to science in the passage of time between 2000 and 2003.
Just lip service to address skeptic’s main complaint. I doubt any real visible movement. GK
Amen to Pamela Gray’s comment. Anthony, you should be proud of what you have accomplished – and I don’t know how you keep this high level of dedication to WUWT! By providing the world platform for breaking the Climategate scandal and keeping the spotlight on the issues it raised you and your wonderful moderators have shifted the issues in the right direction and, as I’ve said before, you’ve made history.
While Jeff Mitchell comments “I’ll believe it when I see it!” (and to some extent I agree) the fact that the scientific community is being dragged by the neck ( largely by Steve McIntyre and WUWT) into this issue is significant.
Scientists in all fields should be concerned that rather than decreasing, scientific fraud, scandals, and studies that have later proved to be incompetent have only increased in frequency since the issue arose on the public and scientific radar back in the 1980s! Open access to data would decrease the temptation by ‘scientists’ to cheat. This would affect both those who are trying to work beyond their competence, and those who deliberately seek prestige or money by producing ‘science’ that plays on public fears. Not only CAGW but the whole fraudulent MMR vaccine scare come to mind.
What would also help is if members of the mainstream media would stir from their lethargic, slug-like state and do some active research of their own. Publicize more of the wastage of money, warping of public policy, and outright threats to public health and safety by those who distort science for personal gain!
Thank God for the blogosphere.
About time.
Let’s see if Nature enforces this as policy. Otherwise, it’s just noise.
Pamela Gray says:
June 28, 2012 at 6:41 am
This would be the only reason to justify paywalls: for journals to maintain such a server that would hold this data in electronic form and provide it free of charge. The researchers themselves should also be required to hold paper or electronic raw data for a number of years (say 50) and agree to make such raw data available…..
_________________________
Pamela, while I agree, I have a nit to pick, Data should NEVER be tossed. That is why we have a Library of Congress and the equivalent in other countries.
Records kept by the Egyptians, the Chinese and others are now being mined for information.
Is this going to be retroactive? Or does all the garbage previously published stand without being examined.