3 ms·
Responses like yours aren't an unrepresentative sample of academics - the ones who read HN and might have more interest in openness of information? A serious qu
by hackuser 10y ago
Responses like yours aren't an unrepresentative sample of academics - the ones who read HN and might have more interest in openness of information? A serious question.
- Fomite 10y agoHonestly, I'm not a particularly passionate advocate of open access publications, and am actively skeptical of open data requirements. But if said open access occurs by mandate, and doesn't cost my lab money...why not?
- hackuser 10y agoThanks for responding. Why be "actively skeptical of open data requirements"? From the outside, they seem to have very little downside and occasionally valuable benefits. As always, I suspect the outsider is blind to some important issues.
- lrem 10y agoSometimes you are using data that shouldn't be released e.g. for privacy reasons. See the recent controversy about research including data from a dating site.
- Fomite 10y agoA couple reasons, in my case: 1. For the work I do, what "The data" is often somewhat ambiguous, and depending on how you define it, falls anywhere from "That's not mine to give" to "This is useless for what you actually want, but obeying the letter of the law". 2. It makes work with minority communities harder - they have a very, very poor history with "Consent to this, and researchers will do whatever they please with your information without consultation." 3. Sometimes privacy issues come up as well with medical data. 4. I think it gives us a false sense of security. "I re-ran their code with their data and got the same answer" is markedly inferior to "I attempted to replicate their study in a different population", but we often do the first and then pat ourselves on the back about it.