Cameron Neylon

A [very interesting
paper](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007078)
from [Caroline
Savage](http://www.linkedin.com/pub/caroline-savage/14/375/b0b) and
[Andrew Vickers](http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/3197.cfm) was published
in [PLoS ONE](http://www.plosone.org) last week detailing an empirical
study of data sharing of PLoS journal authors. The results themselves,
that one out ten corresponding authors provided data, are not
particularly surprising, mirroring as they do previous studies, both
[formal](http://users.fmg.uva.nl/jwicherts/datasharing.pdf) \[pdf\] and
[informal](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/health/views/22essa.html?_r=1)
(also from Vickers, I assume this is a different data set), of data
sharing.

Nor are the reasons why data was not shared particularly new. Two
authors couldn't be tracked down at all. Several did not reply and the
remainder came up with the usual excuses; "too hard", "need more
information", "university policy forbids it". The numbers in the study
are small and it is a shame it wasn't possible to do a wider study that
might have teased out discipline, gender, and age differences in
attitude. Such a study really ought to be done but it isn't clear to me
how to do it effectively, properly, or indeed ethically. The reason why
small numbers were chosen was both to focus on PLoS authors, who might
be expected to have more open attitudes, and to make the request from
the authors, that the data was to be used in a Master educational
project, plausible.

So while helpful, the paper itself isn't doesn't provide much that is
new. What will be interesting will be to see how [PLoS](http://plos.org)
responds. These authors are clearly violating stated PLoS policy on data
sharing (see e.g. [PLoS ONE
policy](http://www.plosone.org/static/policies.action)). The papers
should arguably be publicly pulled from the journals. Most journals have
similar policies on data sharing, and most have no corporate interest in
actually enforcing them. I am unaware of any cases where a paper has
been retracted due to the authors unwillingness to share (if there are
examples I'd love to know about them! \[Ed. [Hilary
Spencer](http://network.nature.com/people/hilary/profile) from
[NPG](http://nature.com) pointed us in the direction of some case
studies in [a presentation from Philip
Campbell](http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2176/version/1)).

Is it fair that a small group be used as a scapegoat? Is it really
necessary to go for the nuclear option and pull the papers? As was said
in a [Friendfeed discussion thread on the
paper](http://friendfeed.com/science-2-0/20780650/plos-one-empirical-study-of-data-sharing-by):
"*IME* \[In my experience\] *researchers are reeeeeeeally good at
calling bluffs. I think there's no other way*". I can't see any other
way of raising the profile of this issue. Should PLoS take the risk of
being seen as hardline on this? Risking the consequences of people not
sending papers there because of the need to reveal data?

The PLoS offering has always been about quality, high profile journals
delivering important papers, and at PLoS ONE critical analysis of the
quality of the methodology. The perceived value of that quality is
compromised by authors who do not make data available. My personal view
is that PLoS would win by taking a hard line and the moral high ground.
Your paper might be important enough to get into Journal X, but is the
data of sufficient quality to make it into PLoS ONE? Other journals
would be forced to follow -- at least those that take quality seriously.

There will always be cases where data can not or should not be
available. But these should be carefully delineated exceptions and not
the rule. If you can't be bothered putting your data into a shape worthy
of publication then the conclusions you have based on that data are
worthless. You should not be allowed to publish. End of. We are running
out of excuses. The time to make the data available is now. If it isn't
backed by the data then it shouldn't be published.

*Update: It is clear from this [editorial blog
post](http://speakingofmedicine.plos.org/2009/09/23/data-sharing-after-publication/)
from the PLoS Medicine editors that PLoS do not in fact know which
papers are involved.Â  As was pointed out by Steve Koch in [the
friendfeed
discussion](http://friendfeed.com/cameronneylon/0fbc705d/show-us-data-now-damnit-excuses-are-running-out)
there is an irony that Savage and Vickers have not, in a sense, provided
their own raw data i.e. the emails and names of correspondents. However
I would accept that to do so would be a an unethical breach of presumed
privacy as the correspondents might reasonably have expected these were
private emails and to publish names would effectively be entrapment.
Life is never straightforward and this is precisely the kind of grey
area we need more explicit guidance on.*

Savage CJ, Vickers AJ (2009) Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors
Publishing in PLoS Journals. PLoS ONE 4(9): e7078.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007078

*Full disclosure: I am an academic editor for PLoS ONE and have raised
the issue of insisting on supporting data for all charts and graphs in
PLoS ONE papers in the editors' forum. There is also a [recent paper
with my name
on](http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nphys1371.html)
in which the words "data not shown" appear. If anyone wants that data I
will make sure they get it, and as soon as Nature enable article
commenting we'll try to get something up there. The usual excuses apply,
and don't really cut the mustard.*


A very interesting paper from Caroline Savage and Andrew Vickers was published in PLoS ONE last week detailing an empirical study of data sharing of PLoS journal authors. The results themselves, that one out ten corresponding authors provided data, are not particularly surprising, mirroring as they do previous studies, both formal [pdf] and informal (also from Vickers, I assume this is a different data set), of data sharing.

Show us the data now damnit! Excuses are running out.

A session entitled "The Future of the Paper" at [Science Online London
2009](http://www.scienceonlinelondon.org/index.php) was a panel made up
of an interesting set of people, [Lee-Ann
Coleman](http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lee-ann-coleman/4/527/a95) from the
[British Library](http://www.bl.uk), [Katharine
Barnes](http://network.nature.com/people/katharine-barnes/profile) the
editor of [Nature Protocols](http://protocols.nature.com/), Theo Bloom
from [PLoS](http://plos.org) and [Enrico
Balli](http://www.linkedin.com/pub/enrico-m-balli/0/8b6/742) of [SISSA
Medialab](http://medialab.sissa.it/).

The panelists rehearsed many of the issues and problems that have been
discussed before and I won't re-hash here. My feeling was that the
panelists didn't offer a radical enough view of the possibilities but
there was an interesting discussion around what a paper was for and
where it was going. My own thinking on this has been recently revolving
around [the importance of a
narrative](http://blog.openwetware.org/scienceintheopen/2009/07/30/telling-stories/)
as a human route into the data. It might be argued that if the whole
scientific enterprise could be made machine readable then we wouldn't
need papers. Lee-Ann argued and I agree that the paper as the human
readable version will retain an important place. Our scientific model
building exploits our particular skill as story tellers, something
computers remain extremely poor at.

But this is becoming an increasingly smaller part of the overall record
itself. For a growing band of scientists the paper is only a means of
citing a dataset or an idea. We need to widen the idea of what the
literature is and what it is made up of. To do this we need to make all
of these objects stable and citeable. As [Phil
Lord](http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord/) pointed out this
isn't enough because you also have to make those objects and their
citations "count" for career credit. My personal view is that the market
in talent will actually drive the adoption of wider metrics that are
essentially variations of Page Rank because other metrics will become
increasingly useless, and the market will become increasingly efficient
as geographical location becomes gradually less important. But I'm
almost certainly over optimistic about how effective this will be.

Where I thought the panel didn't go far enough was in questioning the
form of the paper as an object within a journal. Essentially each
presentation became "and because there wasn't a journal for this kind of
thing we created/will create a new one". To me the problem isn't the
paper. As I said above the idea of a narrative document is a useful and
important one. The problem is that we keep thinking in terms of
journals, as though a pair of covers around a set of paper documents has
any relevance in the modern world.

The journal *used* to play an important role in publication. The
*publisher* still has an important role but we need to step outside the
notion of the journal and present different types of content and objects
in the best way for that set of objects. The journal as brand may still
have a role to play although I think that is increasingly going to be
important only at the very top of the market. The idea of the journal is
both constraining our thinking about how best to publish different types
of research object and distorting the way we do and communicate science.
Data publication should be optimized for access to and discoverability
of data, software publication should make the software available and
useable. Neither are particularly helped by putting "papers" in
"journals". They are helped by creating stable, appropriate publication
mechanisms, with appropriate review mechanisms, making them citeable and
making them valued. The point at which our response to needing to
publish things stops being "well we'd better create a journal for that"
then we might just have made it into the 21st century.

But the *paper* remains the way we tell story's about and around our
science. And if us dumb humans are going to keep doing science then it
will continue to be an important part of the way we go about that.


A session entitled “The Future of the Paper” at Science Online London 2009 was a panel made up of an interesting set of people, Lee-Ann Coleman from the British Library, Katharine Barnes the editor of Nature Protocols, Theo Bloom from PLoS and Enrico Balli of SISSA Medialab. The panelists rehearsed many of the issues and problems that have been discussed before and I won’t re-hash here.

Rogue Scholar Beiträge

Show us the data now damnit! Excuses are running out.

The Future of the Paperâ€¦does it have one? (and the answer is yes!)