open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: AAAS: Your Paper MUST include Data and Code
Mar 10, 2011 07:03 PM | Cinly Ooi
RE: AAAS: Your Paper MUST include Data and Code
Originally posted by Torsten Rohlfing:
The journal in question is interested in the reproducability of the data, so, the condition can be as stringent as reproducing the results using the same method described by the paper. No other use permitted. I don't see this as controverial.
As to question 'the conditions under which the data is made available in the first place'. It is the researchers' responsibility to make sure he can satisfy both the demand from the journal and the source of the data. I come from a computing background, and we always say if you cannot/don't want to satisfy GPL's stringent and unwaivering conditions then don't write your software based on GPL. So, in this case, I tell the researcher to submit the paper somewhere else, may be Nature.
Taking your fictional SPM example, if SPM developers required co-authorship, and the researcher don't like it, then don't use it. It is immaterial what the community thinks. If the community is not prepare to accept the co-authorship condition, then they don't have to use SPM. It's not the community's choice, legally it is accepted that is SPM's decision and SPM's aloneAgain, borrowing from computing, you cannot run MacOSX on non-Apple hardware. Does it matter whether 90% of the (computer user) community wants to use MacOSX on non-Apple computers? No.
If SPM's condition is not acceptable to the community, then we will all use other software.
If the community accepts SPM's fictional precondition, but Science is not willing to accept the condition, then (ultimately) Science has the right to exclude each and every paper that accepts SPM's fictional precondition. It's Science decision, not the community. The community will just have to publish their paper elsewhere. This scenario is however unlikely because a lot of discussion between the two parties will be held and a compromise reached before Science excercise its ultimate rights to exclude papers from their publication.
I might be wrong, and I don't really want to offend anyone, including you but his sounds to me like publishers crying foul when NIH requires every papers that comes from NIH funded research to be made available for free. We all know what the result is: We now have access to a lot of research paper which we won't have without that NIH directive. There was a compromise: The journals get 6 months exclusivity if it chooses.
Neuroscience community against Science Journal? In this fight, unlike NIH vs Journal where NIH is clearly the heavyweight, I really don't know who will win.
Best regards
Ciny
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?
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?
The journal in question is interested in the reproducability of the data, so, the condition can be as stringent as reproducing the results using the same method described by the paper. No other use permitted. I don't see this as controverial.
As to question 'the conditions under which the data is made available in the first place'. It is the researchers' responsibility to make sure he can satisfy both the demand from the journal and the source of the data. I come from a computing background, and we always say if you cannot/don't want to satisfy GPL's stringent and unwaivering conditions then don't write your software based on GPL. So, in this case, I tell the researcher to submit the paper somewhere else, may be Nature.
Taking your fictional SPM example, if SPM developers required co-authorship, and the researcher don't like it, then don't use it. It is immaterial what the community thinks. If the community is not prepare to accept the co-authorship condition, then they don't have to use SPM. It's not the community's choice, legally it is accepted that is SPM's decision and SPM's aloneAgain, borrowing from computing, you cannot run MacOSX on non-Apple hardware. Does it matter whether 90% of the (computer user) community wants to use MacOSX on non-Apple computers? No.
If SPM's condition is not acceptable to the community, then we will all use other software.
If the community accepts SPM's fictional precondition, but Science is not willing to accept the condition, then (ultimately) Science has the right to exclude each and every paper that accepts SPM's fictional precondition. It's Science decision, not the community. The community will just have to publish their paper elsewhere. This scenario is however unlikely because a lot of discussion between the two parties will be held and a compromise reached before Science excercise its ultimate rights to exclude papers from their publication.
I might be wrong, and I don't really want to offend anyone, including you but his sounds to me like publishers crying foul when NIH requires every papers that comes from NIH funded research to be made available for free. We all know what the result is: We now have access to a lot of research paper which we won't have without that NIH directive. There was a compromise: The journals get 6 months exclusivity if it chooses.
Neuroscience community against Science Journal? In this fight, unlike NIH vs Journal where NIH is clearly the heavyweight, I really don't know who will win.
Best regards
Ciny
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 | |