Brain and Behavior: We Want You to Share Your Data. Martone, M. E. 4(1):1–3. ![Brain and Behavior: We Want You to Share Your Data [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex We at Brain and Behavior are happy, for one, that data sharing is now here. [Excerpt] [...] Many reasons are given as to why we cannot, do not, or should not make data available (e.g., Strasser 2013; Wallis et al. 2013), but I think that the main reason we do not routinely share data is that, until recently, we could not. And because we could not, a system of scholarly communication grew where data were disposable. Literally. Eventually, the boxes piled upon boxes and file cabinets overflowed. With no system in place to find, access, share, and use data, their ultimate fate was usually the basement or, ultimately, the garbage bin. And because scholarly communication drives the entire reward system of academia, from promotion to funding, we created a system where the primary products of research upon which science rest: the data themselves were second-class citizens. [\n] So perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves: If, in some alternative reality, we somehow arrived at the 21st century without any tradition of scholarly communication, what would we invent now that would serve science best? Would it be a system that treated the hard won and often expensive products of our instruments and intellect as disposable by-products? Would we design a system in which researchers were rewarded for keeping their data secret and inscrutable and where many of the products of research funding were never recovered, because no one was rewarded for making them available? Would it be a system that insisted only positive results be reported and encouraged selective use of data to tell a good story (Mueck 2013)? [\n] Or would we perhaps instead design a system where the data were viewed as primary products of research and were an integral part of any communication about them? Or perhaps a system where we recognized that some researchers are excellent at producing data and others at analyzing them and so allowed a marketplace or ecosystem to develop that did not diminish one at the expense of the other? Perhaps we might even insist that data are the primary product of research, which serve to anchor an ecosystem of discussion and analysis subsequent to their dissemination, and so require their release before we publish any analysis of them (Birney et al. 2009). [\n] [...] [\n] We are pleased to announce that we will actively encourage all who publish in Brain and Behavior to make their data available, and are planning some incentives to ensure that authors are rewarded for doing so. For example, Brain and Behavior will now allow researchers to publish data papers. Data papers will allow researchers to publish a paper describing a data set that will be deposited within a certified data repository. A certified repository is one that is committed to the long-term preservation of data, employs metadata standards and can issue an appropriate identifier, for example, a DOI, to a data set. [\n] What is the difference between a data paper and a regular research paper? A data paper focuses on the data themselves and not their analysis. Data papers will be judged on the perceived value of the data, for example sufficient number of subjects, data quality, and descriptive metadata, and whether the data themselves are in an actionable form. By ” actionable,” we mean that they are in a form suitable for machine-based access and not just human consumption. The peer review of these data will therefore likely include both a biomedical researcher and someone who is familiar with data structures. These requirements will mean that researchers will have to spend some time cleaning and annotating their data. Whereas earlier, there was little incentive for researchers to put in this extra effort, with the data paper, the researcher will get a publication and we can use current metrics of tracking citations to measure the impact of the data set. [...] [\n] What will be the impacts of widespread sharing of data and full population of data resources? Analysis of public data sets is already resulting in publications (Service 2013) and certain data sharing initiatives are viewed as highly successful, for example, ADNI. But I suspect it will likely be several years before we start to see the tangible fruits of routine data sharing in terms of new types of analyses or insights that make their way into the scientific corpus or are realized into new products or treatments. However, I believe that the intangibles are already here; those of us who run data repositories know that people are looking at data and downloading them. Who knows how many people were inspired to do experiments or were stopped from doing additional experiments because of accessible data? This type of impact is difficult to measure, but is very real. At a minimum, sharing data will increase the transparency of science and diversify the palate from which we can draw inspiration; at the maximum, data sharing will help usher in our brave new world of 21st century scholarly communications and propel scientists to do their job faster and better.
@article{martoneBrainBehaviorWe2014,
title = {Brain and {{Behavior}}: We Want You to Share Your Data},
author = {Martone, Maryann E.},
date = {2014-01},
journaltitle = {Brain and Behavior},
volume = {4},
pages = {1--3},
issn = {2162-3279},
doi = {10.1002/brb3.192},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.192},
abstract = {We at Brain and Behavior are happy, for one, that data sharing is now here.
[Excerpt] [...] Many reasons are given as to why we cannot, do not, or should not make data available (e.g., Strasser 2013; Wallis et al. 2013), but I think that the main reason we do not routinely share data is that, until recently, we could not. And because we could not, a system of scholarly communication grew where data were disposable. Literally. Eventually, the boxes piled upon boxes and file cabinets overflowed. With no system in place to find, access, share, and use data, their ultimate fate was usually the basement or, ultimately, the garbage bin. And because scholarly communication drives the entire reward system of academia, from promotion to funding, we created a system where the primary products of research upon which science rest: the data themselves were second-class citizens.
[\textbackslash n] So perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves: If, in some alternative reality, we somehow arrived at the 21st century without any tradition of scholarly communication, what would we invent now that would serve science best? Would it be a system that treated the hard won and often expensive products of our instruments and intellect as disposable by-products? Would we design a system in which researchers were rewarded for keeping their data secret and inscrutable and where many of the products of research funding were never recovered, because no one was rewarded for making them available? Would it be a system that insisted only positive results be reported and encouraged selective use of data to tell a good story (Mueck 2013)?
[\textbackslash n] Or would we perhaps instead design a system where the data were viewed as primary products of research and were an integral part of any communication about them? Or perhaps a system where we recognized that some researchers are excellent at producing data and others at analyzing them and so allowed a marketplace or ecosystem to develop that did not diminish one at the expense of the other? Perhaps we might even insist that data are the primary product of research, which serve to anchor an ecosystem of discussion and analysis subsequent to their dissemination, and so require their release before we publish any analysis of them (Birney et al. 2009).
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[\textbackslash n] We are pleased to announce that we will actively encourage all who publish in Brain and Behavior to make their data available, and are planning some incentives to ensure that authors are rewarded for doing so. For example, Brain and Behavior will now allow researchers to publish data papers. Data papers will allow researchers to publish a paper describing a data set that will be deposited within a certified data repository. A certified repository is one that is committed to the long-term preservation of data, employs metadata standards and can issue an appropriate identifier, for example, a DOI, to a data set.
[\textbackslash n] What is the difference between a data paper and a regular research paper? A data paper focuses on the data themselves and not their analysis. Data papers will be judged on the perceived value of the data, for example sufficient number of subjects, data quality, and descriptive metadata, and whether the data themselves are in an actionable form. By ” actionable,” we mean that they are in a form suitable for machine-based access and not just human consumption. The peer review of these data will therefore likely include both a biomedical researcher and someone who is familiar with data structures. These requirements will mean that researchers will have to spend some time cleaning and annotating their data. Whereas earlier, there was little incentive for researchers to put in this extra effort, with the data paper, the researcher will get a publication and we can use current metrics of tracking citations to measure the impact of the data set. [...]
[\textbackslash n] What will be the impacts of widespread sharing of data and full population of data resources? Analysis of public data sets is already resulting in publications (Service 2013) and certain data sharing initiatives are viewed as highly successful, for example, ADNI. But I suspect it will likely be several years before we start to see the tangible fruits of routine data sharing in terms of new types of analyses or insights that make their way into the scientific corpus or are realized into new products or treatments. However, I believe that the intangibles are already here; those of us who run data repositories know that people are looking at data and downloading them. Who knows how many people were inspired to do experiments or were stopped from doing additional experiments because of accessible data? This type of impact is difficult to measure, but is very real. At a minimum, sharing data will increase the transparency of science and diversify the palate from which we can draw inspiration; at the maximum, data sharing will help usher in our brave new world of 21st century scholarly communications and propel scientists to do their job faster and better.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13920573,~to-add-doi-URL,data-sharing,editorial,free-scientific-knowledge,knowledge-freedom,open-data,scientific-knowledge-sharing},
number = {1}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"EA6vmNLvnjaGat9pj","bibbaseid":"martone-brainandbehaviorwewantyoutoshareyourdata","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Martone, M. E."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Brain and Behavior: We Want You to Share Your Data","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Martone"],"firstnames":["Maryann","E."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2014-01","journaltitle":"Brain and Behavior","volume":"4","pages":"1–3","issn":"2162-3279","doi":"10.1002/brb3.192","url":"https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.192","abstract":"We at Brain and Behavior are happy, for one, that data sharing is now here. [Excerpt] [...] Many reasons are given as to why we cannot, do not, or should not make data available (e.g., Strasser 2013; Wallis et al. 2013), but I think that the main reason we do not routinely share data is that, until recently, we could not. And because we could not, a system of scholarly communication grew where data were disposable. Literally. Eventually, the boxes piled upon boxes and file cabinets overflowed. With no system in place to find, access, share, and use data, their ultimate fate was usually the basement or, ultimately, the garbage bin. And because scholarly communication drives the entire reward system of academia, from promotion to funding, we created a system where the primary products of research upon which science rest: the data themselves were second-class citizens. [\\n] So perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves: If, in some alternative reality, we somehow arrived at the 21st century without any tradition of scholarly communication, what would we invent now that would serve science best? Would it be a system that treated the hard won and often expensive products of our instruments and intellect as disposable by-products? Would we design a system in which researchers were rewarded for keeping their data secret and inscrutable and where many of the products of research funding were never recovered, because no one was rewarded for making them available? Would it be a system that insisted only positive results be reported and encouraged selective use of data to tell a good story (Mueck 2013)? [\\n] Or would we perhaps instead design a system where the data were viewed as primary products of research and were an integral part of any communication about them? Or perhaps a system where we recognized that some researchers are excellent at producing data and others at analyzing them and so allowed a marketplace or ecosystem to develop that did not diminish one at the expense of the other? Perhaps we might even insist that data are the primary product of research, which serve to anchor an ecosystem of discussion and analysis subsequent to their dissemination, and so require their release before we publish any analysis of them (Birney et al. 2009). [\\n] [...] [\\n] We are pleased to announce that we will actively encourage all who publish in Brain and Behavior to make their data available, and are planning some incentives to ensure that authors are rewarded for doing so. For example, Brain and Behavior will now allow researchers to publish data papers. Data papers will allow researchers to publish a paper describing a data set that will be deposited within a certified data repository. A certified repository is one that is committed to the long-term preservation of data, employs metadata standards and can issue an appropriate identifier, for example, a DOI, to a data set. [\\n] What is the difference between a data paper and a regular research paper? A data paper focuses on the data themselves and not their analysis. Data papers will be judged on the perceived value of the data, for example sufficient number of subjects, data quality, and descriptive metadata, and whether the data themselves are in an actionable form. By ” actionable,” we mean that they are in a form suitable for machine-based access and not just human consumption. The peer review of these data will therefore likely include both a biomedical researcher and someone who is familiar with data structures. These requirements will mean that researchers will have to spend some time cleaning and annotating their data. Whereas earlier, there was little incentive for researchers to put in this extra effort, with the data paper, the researcher will get a publication and we can use current metrics of tracking citations to measure the impact of the data set. [...] [\\n] What will be the impacts of widespread sharing of data and full population of data resources? Analysis of public data sets is already resulting in publications (Service 2013) and certain data sharing initiatives are viewed as highly successful, for example, ADNI. But I suspect it will likely be several years before we start to see the tangible fruits of routine data sharing in terms of new types of analyses or insights that make their way into the scientific corpus or are realized into new products or treatments. However, I believe that the intangibles are already here; those of us who run data repositories know that people are looking at data and downloading them. Who knows how many people were inspired to do experiments or were stopped from doing additional experiments because of accessible data? This type of impact is difficult to measure, but is very real. At a minimum, sharing data will increase the transparency of science and diversify the palate from which we can draw inspiration; at the maximum, data sharing will help usher in our brave new world of 21st century scholarly communications and propel scientists to do their job faster and better.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13920573,~to-add-doi-URL,data-sharing,editorial,free-scientific-knowledge,knowledge-freedom,open-data,scientific-knowledge-sharing","number":"1","bibtex":"@article{martoneBrainBehaviorWe2014,\n title = {Brain and {{Behavior}}: We Want You to Share Your Data},\n author = {Martone, Maryann E.},\n date = {2014-01},\n journaltitle = {Brain and Behavior},\n volume = {4},\n pages = {1--3},\n issn = {2162-3279},\n doi = {10.1002/brb3.192},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.192},\n abstract = {We at Brain and Behavior are happy, for one, that data sharing is now here. \n\n[Excerpt] [...] Many reasons are given as to why we cannot, do not, or should not make data available (e.g., Strasser 2013; Wallis et al. 2013), but I think that the main reason we do not routinely share data is that, until recently, we could not. And because we could not, a system of scholarly communication grew where data were disposable. Literally. Eventually, the boxes piled upon boxes and file cabinets overflowed. With no system in place to find, access, share, and use data, their ultimate fate was usually the basement or, ultimately, the garbage bin. And because scholarly communication drives the entire reward system of academia, from promotion to funding, we created a system where the primary products of research upon which science rest: the data themselves were second-class citizens.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] So perhaps we should stop and ask ourselves: If, in some alternative reality, we somehow arrived at the 21st century without any tradition of scholarly communication, what would we invent now that would serve science best? Would it be a system that treated the hard won and often expensive products of our instruments and intellect as disposable by-products? Would we design a system in which researchers were rewarded for keeping their data secret and inscrutable and where many of the products of research funding were never recovered, because no one was rewarded for making them available? Would it be a system that insisted only positive results be reported and encouraged selective use of data to tell a good story (Mueck 2013)?\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Or would we perhaps instead design a system where the data were viewed as primary products of research and were an integral part of any communication about them? Or perhaps a system where we recognized that some researchers are excellent at producing data and others at analyzing them and so allowed a marketplace or ecosystem to develop that did not diminish one at the expense of the other? Perhaps we might even insist that data are the primary product of research, which serve to anchor an ecosystem of discussion and analysis subsequent to their dissemination, and so require their release before we publish any analysis of them (Birney et al. 2009).\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] We are pleased to announce that we will actively encourage all who publish in Brain and Behavior to make their data available, and are planning some incentives to ensure that authors are rewarded for doing so. For example, Brain and Behavior will now allow researchers to publish data papers. Data papers will allow researchers to publish a paper describing a data set that will be deposited within a certified data repository. A certified repository is one that is committed to the long-term preservation of data, employs metadata standards and can issue an appropriate identifier, for example, a DOI, to a data set.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] What is the difference between a data paper and a regular research paper? A data paper focuses on the data themselves and not their analysis. Data papers will be judged on the perceived value of the data, for example sufficient number of subjects, data quality, and descriptive metadata, and whether the data themselves are in an actionable form. By ” actionable,” we mean that they are in a form suitable for machine-based access and not just human consumption. The peer review of these data will therefore likely include both a biomedical researcher and someone who is familiar with data structures. These requirements will mean that researchers will have to spend some time cleaning and annotating their data. Whereas earlier, there was little incentive for researchers to put in this extra effort, with the data paper, the researcher will get a publication and we can use current metrics of tracking citations to measure the impact of the data set. [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] What will be the impacts of widespread sharing of data and full population of data resources? Analysis of public data sets is already resulting in publications (Service 2013) and certain data sharing initiatives are viewed as highly successful, for example, ADNI. But I suspect it will likely be several years before we start to see the tangible fruits of routine data sharing in terms of new types of analyses or insights that make their way into the scientific corpus or are realized into new products or treatments. However, I believe that the intangibles are already here; those of us who run data repositories know that people are looking at data and downloading them. Who knows how many people were inspired to do experiments or were stopped from doing additional experiments because of accessible data? This type of impact is difficult to measure, but is very real. At a minimum, sharing data will increase the transparency of science and diversify the palate from which we can draw inspiration; at the maximum, data sharing will help usher in our brave new world of 21st century scholarly communications and propel scientists to do their job faster and better.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13920573,~to-add-doi-URL,data-sharing,editorial,free-scientific-knowledge,knowledge-freedom,open-data,scientific-knowledge-sharing},\n number = {1}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Martone, M. E."],"key":"martoneBrainBehaviorWe2014","id":"martoneBrainBehaviorWe2014","bibbaseid":"martone-brainandbehaviorwewantyoutoshareyourdata","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.192"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13920573","~to-add-doi-URL","data-sharing","editorial","free-scientific-knowledge","knowledge-freedom","open-data","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:14.098Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13920573","~to-add-doi-url","data-sharing","editorial","free-scientific-knowledge","knowledge-freedom","open-data","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"search_terms":["brain","behavior","want","share","data","martone"],"title":"Brain and Behavior: We Want You to Share Your Data","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}