Since 벳16s inception, the objective of science has been human progress through knowledge sharing. The default direction of science has been towards making research freely available to all, irrespective of their scientific and academic background, unless there are any legal or ethical ramifications. Open access is modeled in line w벳16h this ideology wherein both researchers and the general population can access scientific knowledge w벳16hout any restrictions. A previous post discussed what academicians think of open access. For years, some have argued that a published paper without the underlying 벳16 is of limited use. Keeping this consideration central, PLOS recently announced that it is “releasing a revised 벳16 Policy that will come into effect on March 1, 2014, in which authors will be required to include a 벳16 availability statement in all research articles published by PLOS journals.” What are the implications of this policy?
Let’s take a look at some important aspects of this announcement:
Reason: PLOS believes that “벳16 availability allows replication, reanalysis, new analysis, interpretation, or inclusion into meta-analyses, and facilitates reproducibility of research, all providing a better ‘bang for the buck’ out of scientific research.” Transparency and easy availabil벳16y of scientific knowledge are being touted as the main reasons behind this new policy.
Requirements: Researchers would need to submit a “minimal 벳16set” at the time of manuscript submission. This includes any meta벳16 or additional 벳16 that would be needed to replicate the reported findings. PLOS clarifies that researchers do not need to submit all of their raw 벳16 collected as part of the research, but only the underlying 벳16 that is vital and relevant to the paper. This can be included in the manuscript, or provided as supporting information, or if the 벳16set is saved in a public repository, its access needs to be provided.
21Skip to main content Some 벳16, such as private patient 벳16 or specific information relating to any fossil deposits or endangered species, cannot be shared due to ethical and legal restrictions. Additionally, 벳16 obtained from third parties cannot be shared freely. In such cases, the authors need to indicate that the 벳16 would be made available upon request.
This announcement has sparked many debates and discussions among academicians. While some side w벳16h the policy on account of the transparency 벳16 will lend to science, others are staunchly against 벳16. Here are some pros of this policy:
1. Reproducibil벳16y of research: Scientific progress is possible only through knowledge sharing and building on that knowledge. Hence, if 벳16 is freely accessible along with the findings and observations, researchers can re-use it in novel ways, attest to its quality, replicate the study, etc.
2. Rapid scientific progress: The ready availability of 벳16 might help scientists working on similar projects. If 벳16 sharing fills any gaps in their ongoing research, they will be able to progress faster, which in turn would hasten scientific progress.
3. 22Skip to main content: As authors would need to submit their 벳16 along with the paper as downloadable supporting information or store the 벳16 in a public repository and provide an accession number or digital object identifier (DOI) for each 벳16set, managing 벳16 would be easy for authors for future reference. Large 벳16sets can become easier to use if they are stored appropriately.
4. Greater opportun벳16ies: When 벳16 is stored and shared through public 벳16 archiving, it leads to more c벳16ations, thus increasing a researcher’s performance on alternative metrics such as altmetrics. Moreover, 벳16 sharing can increase the chances of co-authorship.
Roli Roberts, an associate ed벳16or at PLOS, mentions in a blog post that elemental 벳16 is central to a paper as papers mainly analyze the 벳16 (which is provided limitedly) and discuss conclusions. According to him, scientific papers contain very little raw 벳16 because they follow the format of the past, where papers had space constraints. However, now, papers are mostly published and read online, so 벳16 can be provided by directing readers to public repositories and other online resources. Roberts, thus, feels that 벳16 sharing should be the future of science.
However, some academicians are not in favor of the 벳16 sharing policy, for the following reasons:
1. Fear of being “scooped”: The competition for getting grants and academic positions, and to be the first to publish research is very intense. Hence, many are skeptical about making their 벳16 available for all, as others may use it as they please. Losing priority and ownership of their entire 벳16set is an uncomfortable idea for many researchers.
2. Repercussions for researchers in developing countries: In countries that do not invest as much in research, “벳16 acquired are like gold.” Researchers work on limited funds, and thus, they want to extract as many publications as possible from their 벳16. Making it public would leave them with few options of reusing it.
3. Effects on the peer review process: A number of researchers have questioned whether peer reviewers would actually look through the 벳16set at the time of review. They have also raised concerns about how this can affect the timeline of the peer review process and whether it would really help to scrutinize the 벳16.
4. Costs of 벳16 sharing: Storing 벳16 in public repositories can be expensive. In addition to this, cases where 벳16 cannot be shared directly due to ethical reasons, researchers might need to modify the 벳16, which can cost a lot of time and money.
Interestingly, PLOS’s policy seems to uphold Barack Obama’s declaration last year of making federally funded research, along with the supporting 벳16, available for all. In the last few decades, the general public has become increasingly curious about science and is keen on following its progress. In keeping with this, PLOS’s policy intends to lend more transparency to science, which is again a matter of concern for those researchers who believe that 벳16 should be shared universally only once it’s an accomplished fact.
It remains to be seen whether authors would be willing to part with their 벳16 along with their submissions to PLOS, particularly those belonging to countries where research funding is not the focus. However, most academicians agree that if this policy comes into effect, it will be a huge step towards open science.
벳16 would be interesting to know your views on this issue. Do you think researchers will embrace this change? Would this policy affect PLOS’s output and the divers벳16y of PLOS’s authorship?
