Data Sharing & Reanalysis

Conclusions Data availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data.
Click to expand...

The conclusions are something I was wondering about. Data sharing is really quite minimal hence it allows calculations to be checked but what is really needed is sufficient data to explore other questions and to combine data sets.
 
The data shared is a check on research integrity by anyone motivated and qualified that questions research reports in a journal.
The NIH have been pushing for common data elements since around 2006 that would enable combination of data sets although the words "data parasite" have been bandied about by those unhappy about such openness / sharing /transparency.
 
James said:
"data parasite"
Click to expand...

I find it a really offensive term. People take part in clinical trials (with associated risks) because they want new treatments and to help the science move on to. When people talk of "data parasites" they are basically arguing that they own the data and should have rights to it so that they can further their careers by publishing from it. But people didn't take part in the trial to further academics careers but to further science.

Given analysis plans should be prepublished I don't see why it takes long to publish. The code for the analysis should be written and tested prior to the data being unblinded. (although journals are slow). Hence I wouldn't give much time at all. The aim should be to maximize value from the data as quickly as possible.
 
During negotiations with the journal over these matters, we have sought further guidance from the PACE trial REC. They have advised that public release, even of anonymised data, is not appropriate. As a consequence, we are unable to publish the individual patient data requested by the journal.
Click to expand...
[My bold]

Oh well, that argument is obviously completely rational, given how they fully justify their reasoning for it not being appropriate ... not! :rolleyes::rolleyes:.
 
Adrian said:
The aim should be to maximize value from the data
Click to expand...
The MRC list that objective on their website:
Every year, the MRC invests around £850 million of public money in research, the primary output of which is data. We want to maximise the research opportunities that such a diversity, richness and quantity of data provides. One of the best ways of achieving this is to ensure that data are properly preserved for sharing and informed use beyond the originating research teams
https://www.mrc.ac.uk/research/policies-and-guidance-for-researchers/data-sharing/

As guidance on the use of publicly funded research and ethical responsibility for the implicit contract between research participants and researchers that demonstrable benefit has come from public spiritedness, the MRC page reads as though it were a letter to Santa wish list.
 
Barry said:
Oh well, that argument is obviously completely rational, given how they fully justify their reasoning for it not being appropriate ... not!
Click to expand...

Neither does the statement appeal to authority in terms of saying who they got advice from. They could simply have said Peter 'what do you think about releasing data?' and got the response 'Well Peter, I think it would be inappropriate'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom