James Coyne: Update: PLOS One affirms my (and anyone else’s) right to PACE data published there

[Kati]

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...one-elses-right-to-pace-data-published-there/

PLOS ONE is actively following up on requests for the data from this study and we are writing to provide an update on the current status.

The journal policy that applies to this article requires authors to share the data underlying the study upon request, provided that the release of the data does not compromise the confidentiality of participants in human-subjects research. The data policy that was in effect at the time of the publication of the article did not require the release of the data upon publication or a statement on how the data would be made available.

More at the link...

 

[Simon]

This is the key bit

We have now carefully assessed the study and sought advice from two editorial board members, who have provided guidance on the data necessary to replicate the cost-effectiveness analyses reported in the article, and thus we have established which data we would expect the authors to share in the context of the analyses presented in this PLOS ONE article.

We have contacted the authors to request the release of the data, which include individual patient-level data underlying tables in the article. Our follow-up is ongoing as we engage with the authors and assess requirements to ensure that the confidentiality of patient data collected as part of the clinical trial is not compromised.

Read the full blog!​

 

[Denise]

As you say @Simon - this is key.
"we have established which data we would expect the authors to share in the context of the analyses presented in this PLOS ONE article."
I would very much like to know which data they believe should be shared for analysis (re-analysis).

(It is good that PLOS ONE is following up with the authors.)

 

[Kati]

This is the key bit

Yeah I didn't want to give it all and wanted James to get some traffic...

 

[MeSci]

Should this thread be merged with this one?