Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

So, what's it all about then? Why we share research data


Published on

This is the Keynote talk at a Jisc Research Data Network meeting held at Cambridge University on 6 September 2016. The research data network is designed to be a people network offering participants a place to demonstrate practical research data management implementations and to discuss current issues relating to research data in institutions. This keynote discusses two of the most common excuses for not sharing data and then broadens the discussion out to the need for a move to Open Research of which open data is only a small but essential part.

Published in: Education

So, what's it all about then? Why we share research data

  1. 1. Office of Scholarly Communication So, what’s it all about then? Why we share data Jisc Research Data Network meeting Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University 6 September 2016 Dr Danny Kingsley @dannykay68 Head of Scholarly Communication University of Cambridge
  2. 2. Why are we here? What Where When Why How
  3. 3. Sharing data What Where When Why How Making data available for other researchers Openly accessible repositories As close to publication as possible The focus of today’s meeting What this talk is about – contextualise
  4. 4. Drivers for data sharing Image by Danny Kingsley
  5. 5. Drivers for data sharing Image by Danny Kingsley Funders – return on investment + better quality data
  6. 6. Drivers for data sharing Image by Danny Kingsley Funders – return on investment + better quality data Researchers – cultural expectations the ‘right’ thing to do
  7. 7. Blockers to good research Image by Danny Kingsley
  8. 8. Data Excuse Bingo Data Excuse Bingo created by @jenny_molloy
  9. 9. Incompatible! Data Excuse Bingo created by @jenny_molloy
  10. 10. ‘My data is not very interesting’ • 2005 - Professor Simon Deakin part of a team doing research on the effects of legal reforms to shareholder, creditor and worker rights made their datasets available • To date, ~50 academic papers published re- using the datasets • Organisations include: the International Labour Organization,Asian Development Bank, andTheWorld Bank
  11. 11. ‘Someone might steal/plagiarise it’ ‘A second concern held by some is that a new class of research person will emerge — people who had nothing to do with the design and execution of the study but use another group’s data for their own ends, possibly stealing from the research productivity planned by the data gatherers, or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited.There is concern among some front-line researchers that the system will be taken over by what some researchers have characterized as “research parasites.”’ EDITORIAL ‘Data Sharing’, Dan L. Longo, M.D., and Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:276-277January 21, 2016 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1516564
  12. 12. Case study • Cambridge is a partner institution in the Jisc Data Asset Framework (DAF) surveys – Contributed to survey question development – Organised ethical clearance – Heavily promoted the survey – 440 responses out of the total of 1185 (37% of the responses) came from Cambridge
  13. 13. Partners? We broke our own rule – we did not discuss this before-hand and assumed an arrangement that didn’t exist. A beginners’ mistake. We would have used a non-proprietary repository.
  14. 14. Risk of scooping? • And we would have waited. (To give the team time to write a couple of papers)
  15. 15. The bigger problem This is what I am going to discuss for the rest of this presentation Researchers are in a rat race to stay ahead Image by Danny Kingsley
  16. 16. Series of blogs published during July &August The Case for Open Research
  17. 17. The coin in the realm of academia Image Flickr – Leo Reynolds
  18. 18. Journal Impact Factor Impact Factor for 2015 is – Number of citations in 2014 of articles published in 2012-2013 divided by: – Number of articles published in the journal in 2012-2013 Image by Danny Kingsley
  19. 19. Backlash factors-new-study-gives-you-one-more-reason
  20. 20. factors-new-study-gives-you-one-more-reason
  21. 21. San Francisco Declaration on ResearchAssessment • Themes – The need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations; – The need to assess research on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which the research is published; and – The need to capitalize on the opportunities provided by online publication (such as relaxing unnecessary limits on the number of words, figures, and references in articles, and exploring new indicators of significance and impact). • • >12,000 individuals & >800 organisations
  22. 22. This is one of the big problems Image by Danny Kingsley The insistence on the need to publish novel results in high impact journals is creating a multitude of problems with the scientific endeavour
  23. 23. Hyperauthorship 24 of the 33 pages of this paper listed the over 5,000 authors (nine pages are the paper itself)
  24. 24. Storm of protest 1.17567
  25. 25. Storm of protest threatening-the-academic-work-system-10279748.html
  26. 26. Storm of protest being-a-scientific-author-42094
  27. 27. Storm of protest destroying-credibility-papers
  28. 28. Speaking of other ways of measuring… This Altmetrics score of 579 is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”
  29. 29. Blogged because of author list!
  30. 30. Reproducibility Scientists are very rarely rewarded for being right, they are rewarded for publishing in certain journals and for getting grants. Image by Danny Kingsley
  31. 31. The nine circles of scientific hell (with apologies to Dante and xkcd) Neuroskeptic Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012;7:643-644 Copyright © by Association for Psychological Science
  32. 32. Crisis? Nature, 533, 452–454 (26 May 2016) doi:10.1038/533452a reproducibility-1.19970
  33. 33. Oh dear
  34. 34. Retraction • According to RetractionWatch there are 500- 600 retractions a year • Only 5% of publicly available versions (non- publisher websites) of retracted works have a retraction statement attached C3411255/
  35. 35. Correlation between impact factor and retraction index. Ferric C. Fang, and Arturo Casadevall Infect. Immun. 2011;79:3855-3859
  36. 36. Time for a change ‘Richard Smith: Another step towards the post-journal world’ BMJ blog, 12 Jul, 16 Image by Danny Kingsley
  37. 37. Distribute the load Photo from Flickr – by Andy
  38. 38. Register trials
  39. 39. Peer review of methodology
  40. 40. Increased transparency Cell Press - redesigned methods section to help authors clearly communicate how experiments are conducted. cpt082516.php
  41. 41. Open data • “Publicly funded research data are a public good, produced in the public interest, which should be made openly available with as few restrictions as possible in a timely and responsible manner.” • RCUK Common Principles on Data Policy icy/
  42. 42. Science Matters
  43. 43. Putting money where their mouth is • Wellcome Open Research • Authors can “rapidly publish all outputs from their research – everything from standard research articles and data sets to case reports, protocols, and null and negative results.”
  44. 44. It is all connected • Increasing access to data is part of a much bigger agenda to overhaul how research is shared, assessed and ultimately practiced. • You are part of a revolution. Image by Danny Kingsley
  45. 45. Questions/Discussion • Thanks! Dr Danny Kingsley Head of Scholarly Communication University of Cambridge @dannykay68