Richard Horton - Data sharing—why editors may have got it wrong

[TiredSam]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)31638-5/fulltext?elsca1=etoc

 

[TiredSam]

Horton comes down firmly against "editor-driven mandated data sharing".

The ICMJE proposal was one reason why Jeff Drazen was in town. He was speaking at a meeting convened by the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Wellcome Trust. It was a bracing moment for all editors with grand designs.

The case against editor-driven mandated data sharing was made vociferously.

The Wellcome Trust gets another mention, those nice people who house the SMC.

We published a letter from researchers in Ghana, India, Tanzania, Uganda, the UK, Zambia, and Zimbabwe objecting strenuously to the 6-month rule. They argued that if trials are conducted in low-income countries the demand for data sharing after 6 months would allow scientists in high-income countries to outpace (and therefore undermine) colleagues in lower-income settings.

Lucky them to get a letter published. Couldn't help laughing at the word "outpace", don't know why. Probably the idea that anyone could out-do the PACE trial.

But when it comes to influencing research practice, editors should work with researchers, not against them.

Well we've certainly seen a few examples of what he means by that.

 

[TiredSam]

Oh FFS guess who's a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences?

Clue - look under "W" here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Fellows_of_the_Academy_of_Medical_Sciences&pagefrom=Sykes, Richard Richard Sykes (biochemist)#mw-pages

Not saying there's anything funny going on, but he does seem to have his fingers in every pie going.

EDIT: And if you look under "H" on the previous page you'll find Richard Horton of course.

 

[worldbackwards]

Nice to see Horton putting in the extra effort to go beyond parody. He's like performance art or something.

 

[Snowdrop]

I don't know how much validity there is to the under/over privileged nations argument. it certainly seems plausible.
However it doesn't get the privileged nations off the hook in terms of sharing their data IMO.

 

[Large Donner]

I am at a loss to understand whats going on here. When did data withholding become part of the scientific method? What's a conclusion without data?

How can peer review only mean, "the stuff that we say we found that got us passed for publication by two or three "independent reviewers"?

Why would any scientist bother to try to get access to funds to attempt to replicate your findings if they don't have access to check your data to see if its even a credible or correct conclusion?

 

[Sean]

No opportunity for independent and comprehensive scrutiny of methodology and data = no science.

The only legitimate conditions on that are that the data is adequately anonymised (where appropriate), and that the researchers generating the data get a reasonable time period for a first bite at the publication cherry (and I agree that 6 months is too short, a year seems more reasonable to me.)

If these conditions are met, then the data gets released. (Methodology should be released before the data collection even starts.)

 

[*GG*]

How can peer review only mean, "the stuff that we say we found that got us passed for publication by two or three "independent reviewers"?

Why would any scientist bother to try to get access to funds to attempt to replicate your findings if they don't have access to check your data to see if its even a credible or correct conclusion?

Where do you get this from? Is this what the article says, sorry, have not read it. Doesn't sound right, think people will share there data, although it could be different when the ability to Cash in is involved, such as drug development. Which I can understand.

Have heard of the Data sharing being an issue with Global Warming. Seems like some scientists did not want to provide there data, which sounds very shady to me!

GG

 

[Sidereal]

Data sharing is all talk if it turns out it's not enforceable by journal editors as appears to be the case in the PLoS PACE paper data dispute.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Horton is making the Lancet look ridiculous - pandering to the cliques who put money and kudos ahead of science.

 

[Chrisb]

He seems keen on collaboration. So it will be shaven heads all round at the Lancet.

 

[Glycon]

He seems keen on collaboration. So it will be shaven heads all round at the Lancet.

If I had to guess, I'd be inclined to agree.

Mostly because the whole affair is just so ridiculous and disgraceful that it is impossible to hang it on the "hijackers of the agenda"