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.
I pretty much reject this approach. Just exposing the data is insufficient. All these climate scientists use models to validate their theories; models which are programs. As a programmer I know any program can do anything it wants including lie. Yes the data should be open. And so should the programs. Without both, someone trying to prove or disprove a theory cannot do it conclusively.
While every Tom Dick and Harry sees an advantage in appending pronouncements about global warming to their research, then there will be publishers who are only too happy to earn their crust by reselling the apocalypse to others.
ferdberple says:
June 28, 2012 at 7:43 am
Electronic storage of data has always been cheap.
In 1976 as a graduate student, tired of carrying boxes of punch cards back and forth to and from the computer center, I bought a 6 inch diameter magnetic tape for $12 out of my grad student stipend. I barely used any of it, but had 4 boxes of punch cards on it.
I also checked the price of hard drive storage. The hard drive was about the size of a cake pan and cost $700 for 1 MG of storage.
The computer runs for my thesis are in the basement. If climate science is an example, I think they can be recycled now.
Jeff Mitchell says: June 28, 2012 at 6:58 am
I’ll believe when I see it.
Climate Scientists says:
I’ll see it when I believe it.
Bob Diaz says:
“I can’t think of any compelling case to NOT have open access to all scientific research data.”
And ‘open access’?? Who do they think they’re really dealing with? The government censors ‘open access’:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/27/bird-group-sues-obama-administration-wind-power
Congratulations Anthony, McIntyre and McKitrick, and others. This would not have happened without you. However, I regret that it is the weasel Boulton washing the whitewash off his fingers in his effort at self rehabilitation.
We swim in the sea of lies…and climate villains like Thomas Stocker (Swiss) aim
at concealing data to conceal their traces/lies…. whereas the traditional honest
British gentleman way (Adam Smith , John Locke and Thomas Hobbes) is
to open up sources and fair discussion…..and here we have a case where
a editorial writer goes back to his good heritage…. 3 x Plus…JS
Why do I get the feeling this a “Do as I say, not as I do” article?
No data, no replication.
No code, no replication.
No replication, no science.
As “science” has moved ever more toward computer driven model fantasies, the ONLY way to validate them is to have complete access to the code and the input data / initializing state. If you don’t have that, all you have is a nice computer video game.
It can work through philanthopic support. There are a lot of immensely rich people in the US and other countries, who could fund journals via endowments without even noticing a dip in their bank accounts.
Having uttered/printed these pieties, they will consider the problem solved, or at least dealt with for the near to medium future. When it again becomes egregiously obvious that the problem was never dealt with, the article will be reworded and reprinted. And so on.
The first test will be the next issue of Nature: will the data and model packages and algorithms be located on open source (or even by-request) archives? For all the articles? Some of them? Any of them?
I’ll put money on the answer to all the above being, “Not a chance.”