open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: AAAS: Your Paper MUST include Data and Code
Mar 10, 2011 06:03 PM | Torsten Rohlfing
RE: AAAS: Your Paper MUST include Data and Code
Originally posted by Cinly Ooi:
Fair enough - I guess even if you hand-edited images you could provide a sort of "diff" to "patch" the original to form your modified version.
Back to the other aspect of my concern though - under what conditions are data made available in the first place? If I use data from someone who wants, say, the first-born child of everyone who downloads it, most of us would probably agree that such data are not really "available" (even though the first-born son clause is probably not enforcable, but I am not a lawyer either). But what about data use conditions, for example, where any data user who writes a paper is required to list the data provider as a co-author? Similarly for software. Again, as a random, fictional but prominent example, if the SPM developers had chosen to require co-authorship for themselves on every paper that uses SPM, would the community have accepted that? And if some researchers did accept this condition whereas other find it unacceptable, would the community be willing to accept SPM as generally available (albeit not under reasonable terms) and would Science under their new policy publish such papers?
Originally posted by Torsten
Rohlfing:
[Disclaimer: IANAL and only have common man knowledge of anything legal]
In this case you distribute the knowhow on how you modified the images without distributing the modified image. Examples
(1) If you modify the brain image using a customized program, make the program available
(2) If you did it by hand, say what program you use, together with your documentation on how you modify something and where. You should have this as part of your normal research flow. They probably need to talk to you for exact information on 'stretch point (X,Y) to point (A,B)" where you have to view your image and say (A,B) is (100,200). The procedure is like two person sitting across the table. One having classified information in a brief case that the other cannot see, but he can refers to that info in answering the others question.
The principle I follow here is to permit recreation of your modified brain image as close as possible. Says nothing about ease of recreating the information but you will get there eventually.
HTH
Cinly
Another question I think is not getting enough
attention here is, under what terms such data (and code) are
available. In particular, what happens if the rights to the data
are not held by the paper authors? Say, I write a paper using
slightly modified brain images from the IBSR repository (just as a
random example of a shared data resource). I cannot distribute
those images to anyone because the IBSR use conditions prevent me
from doing it. I can give the modified images back to IBSR and ask
them to make them available on my behalf, but they are not
obligated to. If they do choose to distribute the modified data,
they could impose conditions on them that some may consider
unreasonable. Are these data then still formally available? The
same goes for any other data repository that imposes
non-proliferation conditions upon data users (which is pretty much
every such resource that I am aware of).
[Disclaimer: IANAL and only have common man knowledge of anything legal]
In this case you distribute the knowhow on how you modified the images without distributing the modified image. Examples
(1) If you modify the brain image using a customized program, make the program available
(2) If you did it by hand, say what program you use, together with your documentation on how you modify something and where. You should have this as part of your normal research flow. They probably need to talk to you for exact information on 'stretch point (X,Y) to point (A,B)" where you have to view your image and say (A,B) is (100,200). The procedure is like two person sitting across the table. One having classified information in a brief case that the other cannot see, but he can refers to that info in answering the others question.
The principle I follow here is to permit recreation of your modified brain image as close as possible. Says nothing about ease of recreating the information but you will get there eventually.
HTH
Cinly
Fair enough - I guess even if you hand-edited images you could provide a sort of "diff" to "patch" the original to form your modified version.
Back to the other aspect of my concern though - under what conditions are data made available in the first place? If I use data from someone who wants, say, the first-born child of everyone who downloads it, most of us would probably agree that such data are not really "available" (even though the first-born son clause is probably not enforcable, but I am not a lawyer either). But what about data use conditions, for example, where any data user who writes a paper is required to list the data provider as a co-author? Similarly for software. Again, as a random, fictional but prominent example, if the SPM developers had chosen to require co-authorship for themselves on every paper that uses SPM, would the community have accepted that? And if some researchers did accept this condition whereas other find it unacceptable, would the community be willing to accept SPM as generally available (albeit not under reasonable terms) and would Science under their new policy publish such papers?
Threaded View
| Title | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Luis Ibanez | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| hongtu zhu | Mar 13, 2011 | |
| Luis Ibanez | Mar 13, 2011 | |
| Matthew Brett | Mar 13, 2011 | |
| Isaiah Norton | Mar 13, 2011 | |
| Torsten Rohlfing | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Luis Ibanez | Mar 11, 2011 | |
| Daniel Kimberg | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Torsten Rohlfing | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Torsten Rohlfing | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Torsten Rohlfing | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Matthew Brett | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Pierre Bellec | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Luis Ibanez | Mar 11, 2011 | |
| Matthew Brett | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Torsten Rohlfing | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Daniel Kimberg | Mar 10, 2011 | |
| Cinly Ooi | Mar 10, 2011 | |