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
On a related issue of open information, I was surprised to catch the last part of an item on the Weather Channel last evening regarding “Urban Heat Islands”. In the part which I caught they did not discuss how these are impacting over-all temperature mismeasurment but they at least did a reasonable job of explaining the how and why of their existence to the extent that for many the glaring absence of discussion of their effect upon measured temperature may be obvious.
As soon as science became secretive, it ceased to be science.
If the promoters of CAGW choose to start doing science, and engage in open, reasoned debate, allowing free, unrestricted access to their data, methods, sources, etc, and seeking unfettered publication of dissenting opinion, then we will have science on display for all to see.
I do not believe I will be holding my breath for that day … … …
Regards,
Mark H.
Let us hope that Steve McIntyre is wrong :
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/28/boultons-nature-editorial/
I look forward to the hockey team, UVA, UEA and IPCC being as transparent as Donald Duck’s pants from now on.
Data retention and availability for the duration of the copyright protection sounds fair and reasonable.
And this is after the term “denier” was plastered all over Bain et al….
Crocodile tears imo.
Nature has been among the worst offenders. It is guilty of embargoing papers, filled with data, criticizing CAGW, while publishing the most shallow, sometimes data-free papers and even pure political critiques from its stable of CAGW writers.
This is but an EDITORIAL. It calls for change, but no one at Nature is home upstairs. They never answered the call in 2009, nor 2011, so why think they will answer this call in 2012?
Jimmy Haigh says:
June 28, 2012 at 7:16 am
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?
=======
This certainly belongs in our album of funny texts. When one year ago a Dutch Professor had to resign because of a mega fraud, our academy of sciences (KNAW) was quick in assuring us that this was very, very exceptional and that we should not loose, therefore, our trust in science. In the mean time several other Dutch scientists had to resign for similar reasons, suggesting that the KNAW did not have the correct statistics. Of course, we keep our trust till the bitter end.
Boulton seems to get it, more or less.
Wake me when the Royal Society officially disavows pseudoscience and officially kicks out Paul Nurse. I’m expecting a long nap.
Brady says (June 28, 2012 at 8:40 am): “Let us hope that Steve McIntyre is wrong :
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/28/boultons-nature-editorial/”
Thanks for the link. I’d say Steve nails it.
The unique factor that allowed humans to progress beyond the stage of paleolithic hunter-gatherers is External Memory – the ability to create and preserve information to be shared with others.
The scientific method and mathematics allow others to independently analyze information and to test it for validity.
Data hoarding may temporarily protect the egos of individuals (such as Tycho Brahe), but it does nothing that endures to support society, to advance the state of the science or the material arts, or to benefit mankind (or ‘Mann-kind’, either).
All claims are conditional until independently validated. Even Einstein was a ‘crank’ until his predictions were verified as correct by Arthur Eddington (1919), and again by Robert Pound and Glen A. Rebka Jr. (1959).
I do hope that Messrs Mann, Forest and Jones and all their obstructive little data squirrelling chums read this and squirm. Their childish and unprofessional playground games have done a huge amount to bring climatology into disrepute, and have heaped ordure upon their personal reputations.
History will not look kindly upon them.
@tomwys says:
“Paywall elimination is a next worthy goal, although in all honesty I don’t quite know how that paradigm can work. Suggestions???”
++++++++
I believe the plan is that you pay to get published. The feeling is that institutions will pay to get a paper out there, after which it will be freely available. As electronic publishing is cheap, it may appeal more as the year go by.
Universities often pay the Department for each paper published so it is likely this is not going to be a big problem. It is tax deductible (it’s an expense) so it could be made even more attractive.
The huge advantage is it will be on balance far cheaper than other methods of giving people access to publicly funded research. Readership would expand. The success of Professor Sebastian Thrun, formerly of Stanford University is really causing heads to turn. Education is heading for a huge transition in an online universe.
He explains why he gave up his tenure at Stanford to start a new online university that offers all courses for free. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkneoNrfadk
Such things will be common in future and open access to knowledge a prerequisite.
Ignorance not being a virtue, we must seek to elevate the masses with mass methods. CAGW is nearly the last gasp of ‘science as priestcraft’ – the anointed insiders plotting against the majority using the majority’s resources to do it. Loved the reference above to the Druids. They refused point blank to share their information with the Romans and the info died with them – thousands of years of collected astronomical and physical science, slaughtered for nothing. I doubt there are many climate martyrs plotting at their desks. You can already identity the lifeboats they are scrambling to get into: smoke inhalation, Black Carbon, water shortages, meteor impact, SARS…anything with a big budget upside for research.
JayHd above asked:
“Is this going to be retroactive? Or does all the garbage previously published stand without being examined.”
Bingo.
I can’t think of any compelling case to NOT have open access to all scientific research data.
So will “Nature” change?
AlexS says:
June 28, 2012 at 12:38 pm
So will “Nature” change?
_____________________________
NO
What is needed is new Journals that do insist on data and meta data availability to compete against the older journals. Unfortunately it is a closed loop clique at this point. With the increase in Science Fraud publicity we may just start seeing those newer journals though.
For example the New York Times editiorial: A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform from 4/17/2012
I tend to agree with Jimmy Haigh @ur momisugly June 28, 2012 at 7:16 am
The public at large is beginning to see the pedestal that “Science” stands upon is built of bull feces and I think we are seeing the start of a mad dash to plaster over the bull feces.
Richard Drake at Climate Audit has a rather interesting take on Boulton’s motive.
I have added Dr Phil Jones famous little rejoinder to the Blessed Steve in the Nature comments section. Let’s see how long it stays there…. 🙂
Crispin in Waterloo says, June 28, 2012 at 11:31 am:
” [ … ] Universities often pay the Department for each paper published so it is likely this is not going to be a big problem. [ … ] ”
===========
I discussed this with my wife, an academic and researcher who much maligns university publishing requirements. Some of this money flows back to the individual’s ‘research’ account to offset costs of attendance at conferences, employment of research assistants, etc. Hence the process becomes indelibly corrupted … and we see much very poor quality ‘research’ pronouncements coming out of universities around the world. Look in any any given newspaper on any given day to find some declaration that according to so-and-so university something bad is going to happen to you because you do whatever … I tell you what immediately goes through the mind of the average Joe in the street, “Bullshyte !”
And science in general wonders why it is held in open contempt by the populace?
Dodgy Geezer says:
June 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“I have added Dr Phil Jones famous little rejoinder to the Blessed Steve in the Nature comments section. Let’s see how long it stays there…. :)”
Should have included the one where he says he’ll destroy the data before turning it over.
What a novel concept, why didn’t someone think of this sooner? 😉
I could support paywalls for the data with the papers themselves being free.
I hope this editorial is more than “just one more” calling for openness that ends up having no impact.
I wonder by open they mean the data which supporters ‘the cause’ and by access they mean those that support ‘the cause ‘
Fair enough, given no one else clearly counts and has AGW is a self evident truth, or so we are told, there can be no valid evidenced that does not support it.
But if they want to improve things they could start by asking these professionals and well qualified scientists to meet the standards expected of students at university for data collection , version control and statistical validity , if that is not to much for them of course .
from Steve Mc Intyre’s take:
I have to hold Steve’s trustworthy statement of what actually happened, against the large number of nice welcoming comments here saying
and the like.
Nice and welcoming, but naive I think.
Lucy Skywalker says:
June 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm
I have to hold Steve’s trustworthy statement of what actually happened, against the large number of nice welcoming comments here saying
“We are witnessing a sea change within the scientific community. The truth will set us free.”
and the like.
Nice and welcoming, but naive I think.
____________________
Hello Lucy,
I wrote the comment which you quoted (“…seachange…”), early this morning.
It didn’t take long for my hopes to fade and after a long day, not only do I agree with you, but I’ve moved considerably beyond the sentiments which you and Mr. McIntyre have expressed.
Now viewing the editorial in Nature more as subterfuge, considering the day’s profound (for U.S. citizens) political events- which have no bearing on climate change- a conclusion could be drawn that we are not only losing this battle, but that the war itself may have already been lost.