4 ms·

I hate to be sincere, but the reality is the data is our product. If we open source our data too much, we won't have anything left to publish as others who woul

I hate to be sincere, but the reality is the data is our product. If we open source our data too much, we won't have anything left to publish as others who would have to expend nowhere near the resources we must do to produce it can scrape it and publish it. (that literally is how "AI" of the current hype bubble works today, lol, why would I want that online?) The incentives are definitely bad, and that's where the actual fix should be.

diognesofsinope 3y ago
If any level of government funds your institution you should have to releases the data. The code I write is not my code, it's the banks.
- caddemon 3y ago
  If that happened it would indirectly change the incentives anyway, because everyone would start being required to release data, so bad practices that are currently incentivized would become impossible. However I think it would be better to directly incentivize data release rather than require it, at least in biomedical sciences. Because of patient privacy issues there is no way raw data release can be required across the board. And I certainly do not trust the NIH to come up with a coherent set of rules for when it is versus isn't allowed, which would mean loopholes and more corruption.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  Most projects are funded by a patchwork of different sources, not all of which would agree to the same terms of release of the information, but all of which are required sufficiently fund its creation. Not to mention maintaining ongoing storage and accessibility. single source government grants for scientific research are the exception, not the rule.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Fomite 3y ago
  What if I use your medical records, which contain pretty trivial identifying information in them?
ramblenode 3y ago
I don't think this is the main reason people don't open source data. If your data is high quality and others are using it to find interesting stuff then you are going to get citations and authorship on additional publications with minimal work, which sounds like a great ROI. The reason data doesn't get open sourced is because researchers are not actually confident in the data and don't want their other works to be exposed.
- Fomite 3y ago
  "If your data is high quality and others are using it to find interesting stuff then you are going to get citations and authorship on additional publications with minimal work..." This has not been born out in my experience, or the experience of others. Data products are chronically undervalued and undercited in science, and do not come with guarantees of authorship unless you put up barriers to access them without it. Open data is, at this point, a decision made for either ideological reasons or as a condition of funding and/or publication, not a decision that is itself usually "worth" the investment of curating a public data set.
  - noobermin 3y ago
    This is the limit to what people do. In my field, even source code sometimes isn't free software. However, if you ask a researcher, they will give you a copy you can freely modify, because the act of asking means they know who you are as a person, and can later ask for citations when you publish. Data is similarly treated. Just putting it out there without any barriers guarantees that other parties will use it without citing you.

diognesofsinope 3y ago

If any level of government funds your institution you should have to releases the data. The code I write is not my code, it's the banks.

caddemon 3y ago
If that happened it would indirectly change the incentives anyway, because everyone would start being required to release data, so bad practices that are currently incentivized would become impossible. However I think it would be better to directly incentivize data release rather than require it, at least in biomedical sciences. Because of patient privacy issues there is no way raw data release can be required across the board. And I certainly do not trust the NIH to come up with a coherent set of rules for when it is versus isn't allowed, which would mean loopholes and more corruption.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
Most projects are funded by a patchwork of different sources, not all of which would agree to the same terms of release of the information, but all of which are required sufficiently fund its creation. Not to mention maintaining ongoing storage and accessibility. single source government grants for scientific research are the exception, not the rule.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Fomite 3y ago
What if I use your medical records, which contain pretty trivial identifying information in them?

ramblenode 3y ago

I don't think this is the main reason people don't open source data. If your data is high quality and others are using it to find interesting stuff then you are going to get citations and authorship on additional publications with minimal work, which sounds like a great ROI. The reason data doesn't get open sourced is because researchers are not actually confident in the data and don't want their other works to be exposed.

Fomite 3y ago
"If your data is high quality and others are using it to find interesting stuff then you are going to get citations and authorship on additional publications with minimal work..." This has not been born out in my experience, or the experience of others. Data products are chronically undervalued and undercited in science, and do not come with guarantees of authorship unless you put up barriers to access them without it. Open data is, at this point, a decision made for either ideological reasons or as a condition of funding and/or publication, not a decision that is itself usually "worth" the investment of curating a public data set.
- noobermin 3y ago
  This is the limit to what people do. In my field, even source code sometimes isn't free software. However, if you ask a researcher, they will give you a copy you can freely modify, because the act of asking means they know who you are as a person, and can later ask for citations when you publish. Data is similarly treated. Just putting it out there without any barriers guarantees that other parties will use it without citing you.