Letters

Evaluating Science's open-data policy

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  18 Aug 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6352, pp. 654
DOI: 10.1126/science.aan8158

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • Comments on "Evaluating Science’s open-data policy"
    • Jozsef Seres, University Assistant, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

    In this Letter D. G. Roche (1) asked further extension of the open-data policy and among others requested a minimum of "all data are available for reviewers to assess". I find his suggestions controversial and irrational.

    - If research data were expected to be available during the review process, journals would have to change their review policy. They would have to suggest reviewers to the authors and let them to choose reviewers they trust and allow to get their data set. Later, this will be further justified.

    Let take an example to explain. We usually made measurement campaigns and collect big mass of data. After that, it took half year or more hard work to evaluate the data and write the necessary software. What can be expected from the review process with the deposited data?

    - Will the reviewers invest the half year hard work to evaluate the data too?

    - If they do not invest, they cannot get the result and cannot say anything about the integrity of the data and data evaluation.

    - Even if the reviewers do it, it will delay the review process with half to one year.

    - It raises ethical questions. Would it be ethical from the reviewers to use their research budget and man power for such unproductive task? They cannot publish the result and even a PhD student cannot put it into the dissertation because it would be plagiarism. Or do the reviewers have to become co-authors if they invested similar work into data evaluati...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science

Navigate This Article