Why they shared: recovering early arguments for sharing social scientific data | Science in Context | Cambridge Core

Abstract:  Most social scientists today think of data sharing as an ethical imperative essential to making social science more transparent, verifiable, and replicable. But what moved the architects of some of the U.S.’s first university-based social scientific research institutions, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR), and its spin-off, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), to share their data? Relying primarily on archived records, unpublished personal papers, and oral histories, I show that Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, Philip Converse, and others understood sharing data not as an ethical imperative intrinsic to social science but as a useful means to the diverse ends of financial stability, scholarly and institutional autonomy, and epistemological reproduction. I conclude that data sharing must be evaluated not only on the basis of the scientific ideals its supporters affirm, but also on the professional objectives it serves.

 

Openness in Big Data and Data Repositories | SpringerLink

Abstract:  There is a growing expectation, or even requirement, for researchers to deposit a variety of research data in data repositories as a condition of funding or publication. This expectation recognizes the enormous benefits of data collected and created for research purposes being made available for secondary uses, as open science gains increasing support. This is particularly so in the context of big data, especially where health data is involved. There are, however, also challenges relating to the collection, storage, and re-use of research data. This paper gives a brief overview of the landscape of data sharing via data repositories and discusses some of the key ethical issues raised by the sharing of health-related research data, including expectations of privacy and confidentiality, the transparency of repository governance structures, access restrictions, as well as data ownership and the fair attribution of credit. To consider these issues and the values that are pertinent, the paper applies the deliberative balancing approach articulated in the Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research (Xafis et al. 2019) to the domain of Openness in Big Data and Data Repositories. Please refer to that article for more information on how this framework is to be used, including a full explanation of the key values involved and the balancing approach used in the case study at the end.

 

Openness in Big Data and Data Repositories | SpringerLink

Abstract:  There is a growing expectation, or even requirement, for researchers to deposit a variety of research data in data repositories as a condition of funding or publication. This expectation recognizes the enormous benefits of data collected and created for research purposes being made available for secondary uses, as open science gains increasing support. This is particularly so in the context of big data, especially where health data is involved. There are, however, also challenges relating to the collection, storage, and re-use of research data. This paper gives a brief overview of the landscape of data sharing via data repositories and discusses some of the key ethical issues raised by the sharing of health-related research data, including expectations of privacy and confidentiality, the transparency of repository governance structures, access restrictions, as well as data ownership and the fair attribution of credit. To consider these issues and the values that are pertinent, the paper applies the deliberative balancing approach articulated in the Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research (Xafis et al. 2019) to the domain of Openness in Big Data and Data Repositories. Please refer to that article for more information on how this framework is to be used, including a full explanation of the key values involved and the balancing approach used in the case study at the end.

 

Imposters and Impersonators in Preprints: How do we trust authors in Open Science? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The prevalence of fictitious authorship across preprints is still unknown, and the writers’ motivations are opaque in most cases. This nefarious behavior within the open science arena raises many questions in need of discussing….”

Why we need to think about ethics when using satellite data for development | Devex

“To avoid these dynamics, Allan says it’s vital that stakeholders think carefully about who controls the collection of data, what platforms are being used to store and organize the data collected — and if those platforms are proprietary, or open-sourced — and what will happen to the data after the project is complete.

“The problem with proprietary data is that each NGO might be mapping different things, and they aren’t necessarily sharing that data,” Allan said. “So you might have Oxfam mapping one type of water source, but ignoring WaterAid, who may be mapping another, potentially leading to false resource reports.”

Another issue with proprietary data is that after the project is complete, it often becomes inaccessible to anyone except the NGO and donors, he said.

“The data is not only getting wasted, but it’s also potentially insecure, through lack of sustained ownership,” he said. “One way to get around this issue is to make data open-source, available in the public space, accountable to — and also update-able by — local communities.” …”

Open access pay-for-review option — ethical question

“Although I welcome the ‘guided open access’ option being adopted by the Nature family of journals (see Nature 588, 19–20; 2020), I have serious ethical concerns about it in the short and medium term.

These go beyond the commonly voiced financial and organizational problems, such as how to get funders on board or how reviews can be transferred to other publishers. For example, given that most manuscripts are rejected without review, wealthy authors or disciplines might use the guided option to buy their way into the process. In a world where slots in highly influential journals are limited, positive reviews of manuscripts that might otherwise be rejected could disadvantage those unable to afford the guided option, and make selection of non-guided manuscripts harder.

Moreover, what would happen if the success of guided open access were to cause a sudden flood of reviewing requests from Nature journals? Potential reviewers might not react well to participating for free, knowing that authors are paying for the chance to have their manuscript reviewed. Incentives for reviewers beyond serving the scientific community might be necessary. Such incentives, together with the opportunity to review high-flying manuscripts, could affect the dynamics of the finite pool of reviewers by diverting reviewers from other journals. The net result could be control of the peer-review process by a few important publishers….”

Can open access publishing be made ‘JUST’ for authors from low-middle income countries? – The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

“OA applies the principles of ‘FAIR’ in its publishing model. Proposed in March 2016 and endorsed by the European commission and the G20, ‘FAIR’ is an acronym for ‘findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable’, intended to more clearly define what is meant by the term ‘open access’ and make the concept easier to discuss [5]. We wondered if the ‘FAIR’ concept can be supported by the philosophy of ‘JUST’ as well, to empower authors especially from the low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

J- Jargon friendly, U- Universal, S- Sharing, T- Transparent….”

The Scholarly Knowledge Ecosystem: Challenges and Opportunities for the Field of Information

Abstract:  In this research article, we draw upon major reports from a cross-section of disciplines related to large scale scientific information ecosystems to characterize the most significant research challenges, and promising potential approaches. We explore two themes that emerge across research areas: the need to align research approaches and methods with core ethical principles; and the promise of approaches that are transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral.

 

Recommendations for implementing the OSCAR open science code of conduct

“This document is part of the OSCAR project (Open ScienCe Aeronautic & Air Transport Research). The main aim of the OSCAR project is to pave the way for open science in the European Aeronautic and Air Transport (AAT) research landscape. For more information on the project, its WPs, deliverables and results please see the OSCAR project proposal or the other documents of the project available at the official website of the project: https://oscar-h2020.eu/. This deliverable D4.4 presents an instruction how EU projects can include open science principles into their daily project work by using the OSCAR open science code of conduct (henceforth often just called the OSCAR code)….”

‘Make Knowledge Free, Not Private Property’ – Online All India Convention

“The recent lawsuit filed in the Delhi High Court by the publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society against Sci-hub and LibGen for copyright infringement has brought to the fore the debate between legality and ethicality of limiting access to knowledge. This discussion will address key concerns.”