In the early 1990s, ecologists asserted the value of unrestricted sharing of data and incentivized their documentation, archiving, and distribution. Twenty-five years on, we know that open data increases impacts of papers and spurs synthesis, and technical barriers to data sharing have largely disappeared. But social barriers still limit attainment of a truly "open ecology". These barriers include: fears of being "scooped;" concerns for resources required to organize data; a lack of a widely-accepted system for citing them and crediting their authors; and inequities in their distribution and use. In short, the enemy of open data is us.

2. “Open data is research data that is freely
available on the internet permitting any user
to download, copy, analyze, re-process, pass to
software or use for any other purpose without
financial, legal or technical barriers other than
those inseparable from gaining access to the
internet itself”
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition: https://sparcopen.org/

3. PUBLICLY FUNDED DATA
ARE A PUBLIC GOOD

4. CC 4.0 BY-NC http://www.pngall.com/
Why share?
• Accelerate pace of discovery
• Advance knowledge
• Rapidly identify safe &
effective treatments
• Independent confirmation
• Minimize costly and
unnecessary repetitive studies
• Maximize value for
participants’ participation
• Increase value for funders
Howe et al. (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617751555

5. Why share?
• Minimize risk of extinction
• Maximize funding ability
• Inform & improve monitoring
• Maximize data reliability
• Minimize data loss/entropy
and redundant work
• Maximize output & impact
• Maximize public interest in
biodiversity Tulloch et al. (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1

6. Citation density for papers with and without publicly
available microarray data, by year of study publication.
Potential causes of
≈10% open data citation
benefit:
• Data re-use
• Credibility signaling
• Increased visibility
• Early view
• Selection bias
Piwowar & Vision (2013)
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.175

7. PUBLICLY FUNDED DATA
ARE A PUBLIC GOOD
Ought ≠ Is
The largest discrepancy in current practices of data sharing is between what people
believe should be done with data and what is actually being done. Despite an overall
belief that scientific data should be available for use beyond their original purpose,
scientists are often protective of their data and may not readily engage in sharing
practices.
Tenopir et al. (2015)
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134826

8. CC 4.0 BY-NC http://www.pngall.com/
Why not share?
Lack of anonymity •
Release of sensitive details •
Potential for misuse or •
manipulation of data •
Additional work and cost to•
prepare (meta)data •
Informed consent & re-consent •
Unfamiliar •
Lack of good models/precedents •
Howe et al. (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617751555

9. Why not share?
Increase human access •
Reduce future funding •
Potential for misuse or •
manipulation of data •
Additional work and cost to•
prepare (meta)data •
Violate privacy/consent •
Embarrassment if errors found •
Lack of credit for work •Tulloch et al. (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1

10. Tulloch et al. (2018)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1
Figure 1. Decision tree for publishing biodiversity data
from monitoring and surveying

11. Mandatory archiving of (long-term)
ecological data?
Why not?
• Flawed science without involvement of PI
• More time spent on redundant activities
• Fewer long-term studies (de-incentivize)
• Less collaboration
• Cost of archiving and maintenance
• Loss of students for field work
Mills et al. (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.07.006

12. Calvin and Hobbes © Bill Watterson; December 7, 1989
“I'm not going to collect data for 30 years just
to be scooped by some jerk with an R script”
--Matthew Shawkey (@mdshawkey), October 1, 2015

13. Within two years of collection and no later than
on publication of main findings (most data types)
Creative Commons licensing

14. Evans (2016)
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002432

15. Are long-term data independently re-used?
No. ZERO cases of archived data re-used by
independent researchers.
Evans (2016)
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002432

16. Serwadda et al. (2015)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8395

17. • Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (lead)
• 9 major international herbaria (including Kew, Missouri,
Smithsonian, Harvard, New York, Vienna, Stockholm, Edinburgh) and
58 Brazilian herbaria
• 3.15M specimens (1.2M georeferenced; 140K types)
(6 August 2018)