Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research | Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract:  Data sharing anchors reproducible science, but expectations and best practices are often nebulous. Communities of funders, researchers and publishers continue to grapple with what should be required or encouraged. To illuminate the rationales for sharing data, the technical challenges and the social and cultural challenges, we consider the stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. In biomedical research, participants are key among those stakeholders. Ethical sharing requires considering both the value of research efforts and the privacy costs for participants. We discuss current best practices for various types of genomic data, as well as opportunities to promote ethical data sharing that accelerates science by aligning incentives.

 

Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritise Rights in The Open Commons | Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics | Cambridge Core

Abstract:  During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, open science has become central to experimental, public health and clinical responses across the globe. Open science is described as an open commons, in which a right to science avails all possible scientific data for everyone to access and use. In this common space, capitalist platforms now provide many essential services and are taking the lead in public health activities. These neoliberal businesses, however, have a central role in the capture of public goods. This paper argues that the open commons is a community of rights, consisting of people and institutions whose interests mutually support the public good. If OS is a cornerstone of public health, then reaffirming the public good is its overriding purpose, and unethical platforms ought to be excluded from the commons and its benefits.

When you are making plans to publish research, you need to plan for data sharing: Climacteric: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  Open data is another step on the pathway of strengthening medical research. Allowing access to data facilitates testing the reproducibility of research findings. It also allows for the testing of new hypotheses, the incorporation of individual level data into meta-analyses and the development of very large data sets in which to develop and test new algorithms. There are now many data repositories that researchers can use to share their protocols, syntax and data. There are strategies both for managing what other researchers do with publically available data and for rewarding researchers who share their data. There is a strong ethical argument for making data publically available and research participants are generally supportive of this approach.

 

When you are making plans to publish research, you need to plan for data sharing: Climacteric: Vol 0, No 0

Abstract:  Open data is another step on the pathway of strengthening medical research. Allowing access to data facilitates testing the reproducibility of research findings. It also allows for the testing of new hypotheses, the incorporation of individual level data into meta-analyses and the development of very large data sets in which to develop and test new algorithms. There are now many data repositories that researchers can use to share their protocols, syntax and data. There are strategies both for managing what other researchers do with publically available data and for rewarding researchers who share their data. There is a strong ethical argument for making data publically available and research participants are generally supportive of this approach.

 

Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?

Abstract:  Scholarly communication in science, technology and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests – publishers, funders, libraries, and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained library budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal and ethical dilemmas that require solutions while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors’ perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process.

 

Utility, Morality, Strategy, and Scholarly Communication – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Here’s what has raised these questions for me again recently: our library regularly gets invited to contribute financially to programs that will make content freely available to the world. Sometimes (for example, with programs such as Knowledge Unlatched or SCOAP3) we’ve been asked to contribute to a program that will directly underwrite making current or future publications available on an open access (OA) basis; other times (for example, with consortial transformative agreements) we’ve been invited to pay more for a journal package in order to allow our institutional authors to publish in those journals on an OA basis. In the former case, we’re being asked to make a financial sacrifice for the good of the wider world; the latter case is similar, though arguably in that case our increased outlay would create a direct benefit to our institutional authors as well (to the degree that they do, in fact, want to make their work OA; in reality, of course, some care about that more than others do).

The argument in favor of these arrangements is usually based on a clearly (if implicitly) utilitarian position: creating utility for the whole world is morally superior to creating utility primarily for members of the immediate campus community.

What I think is interesting, though, is that you can also imagine utilitarian arguments against arrangements like these.

For example, from a utilitarian perspective you could argue that using a relatively large amount of campus money to make a relatively small amount of university-produced content OA will not necessarily create more global utility than using that money for another purpose. After all, the money could also be used to support scholarships for students from underrepresented groups, or to bolster the programs of our crisis center. Can we be confident that these uses would do less good in the world than would be done by making some of the articles of some of our authors freely available? …”

UC Berkeley Library makes it easier to digitize collections responsibly with novel workflows and bold policy | UC Berkeley Library News

“If you’ve spent any time stoking your curiosity with the UC Berkeley Library’s new online Digital Collections website, you’ve likely discovered all types of treasures digitized from the Library’s collections. The Library has already scanned and made available a virtual mountain of materials, from a photo of folk icon Joan Baez singing in front of Sproul Hall in 1964, to (almost) the entire run of the Daily Californian student newspaper.

The effort is part of the Library’s moonshot goal of wanting to make its estimated 200 million items from its special collections (rare books, manuscripts, photographs, archives, and ephemera) available online for the world to discover and use. But there’s a catch: Before institutions can reproduce materials and publish them online for worldwide access, they have to sort out complicated legal and ethical questions — ones that often stop libraries and other cultural heritage organizations from being able to move forward in setting these treasures free.

The good news? It just got easier to navigate these challenges, thanks to newly released responsible access workflows developed by the Library, which stand to benefit not only UC Berkeley’s digitization efforts, but also those of cultural heritage institutions such as museums, archives, and libraries throughout the nation….”

Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science – Mary A. Majumder, Amy L. McGuire, 2020

“As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.

 

Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals

Abstract:  In this study, the authors examine attitudes of researchers toward open access (OA) scholarly journals. Using two-step cluster analysis to explore survey data from faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at large North American research institutions, two different cluster types emerge: Those with a positive attitude toward OA and a desire to reach the nonscholarly audience groups who would most benefit from OA (“pro-OA”), and those with a more negative, skeptical attitude and less interest in reaching nonscholarly readers (“non-OA”). The article explores these cluster identities in terms of position type, subject discipline, and productivity, as well as implications for policy and practice.

 

Towards a Research Integrity Culture at Universities: From Recommendations to Implementation

“In recent years there has a been a cultural change in which the outcomes of research are expected to be available to a wider public, in what has been termed ‘open science’. This brings both opportunities and challenges with regard to research integrity and researchers should be made aware of this. With research open to a wider public, there are opportunities for greater awareness and scrutiny of research results. Universities should encourage researchers to make research data ‘open’ and provide a research infrastructure in which responsible management of research data is facilitated. Guidance should be developed for researchers on the appropriate use of secondary data from other sources. Research should be credited in a proper and transparent way through responsible authorship or acknowledgment, and previously published research should be properly cited….”