Coyne - What it takes for Queen Mary to declare a request for scientific data “vexatious”

Y

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
Great to see Richard Smith tweet this.

PACE PI's are in checkmate. What can they do - they are finished if they release it and if they don't they attract more attention.

What else can they do other than make a big mistake? There are no good moves for the PACE PI's

I am quite glad that these arrogant PACE PIs refused the request.

I know there's gonna be good times for ME patients!

 
Last edited:
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Chrisb said:
I have probably been rather slow on the uptake, but it has puzzled me that the university seems prepared to back the researchers to the extent that they do.

I suddenly recalled hearing, long ago, of the linkage of central funding for universities being based on quality of research rather than teaching. On this basis Oxbridge and the London universities were deemed to receive a disproportionate share of the funds. Is this still correct and what implications would the discrediting of a major Government backed piece of research be likely to have on the universities' future income?

Could this be a factor in the determination to fight? Here comes that concept of secondary gain, again.
Click to expand...

PACE was a key part of the QMUL submission to REF. Would be interesting to see how that research was assessed.
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
I'm convinced KCL deliberately used the Friday Effect (release bad news right before the weekend so fewer people see and respond to it). We need to keep this story out there for responsible scientists to see and comment upon.
 
alex3619

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
SOC said:
I'm convinced KCL deliberately used the Friday Effect (release bad news right before the weekend so fewer people see and respond to it). We need to keep this story out there for responsible scientists to see and comment upon.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the practice of releasing bad news just before the holiday season. People are off work or into the holiday spirit, and so there are far fewer to notice the bad things.

But the internet does not forget.
 
Large Donner

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
SOC said:
I'm convinced KCL deliberately used the Friday Effect (release bad news right before the weekend so fewer people see and respond to it). We need to keep this story out there for responsible scientists to see and comment upon.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the Friday release date the last day that it fell on for the processing of the release under the FOI act?

It's possible they left it until that day and time but it was Coyne who filed the request and the last day to respond could only have fallen on Friday midnight by chance couldn't it?

That's not to say they wouldn't have taken advantage of it.
 
Last edited:
S

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Large Donner said:
Wasn't the Friday release date the last day that it fell on for the processing of the release under the FOI act?

It's possible they left it until that day and time but it was Coyne who filed the request and the last day to respond could only have fallen on Friday midnight by chance couldn't it?

That's not to say they wouldn't have taken advantage of it.
Click to expand...

There was no call for them to deal with it under the FOI Act in the first place - the request was made with reference to PLOS One's data-sharing policies - and having decided to deal with it under FOI, there was no reason to leave it until the last possible minute (even, apparently, to leave it after business hours on the Friday).
 
Large Donner

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Sasha said:
There was no call for them to deal with it under the FOI Act in the first place - the request was made with reference to PLOS One's data-sharing policies - and having decided to deal with it under FOI, there was no reason to leave it until the last possible minute (even, apparently, to leave it after business hours on the Friday).
Click to expand...

Yes I understand all that but they did deal with it under the FOI and by chance the exact expiry date and time fell at...Midnight?? last Friday.

I am just saying that there are 7 days in a week so its a 1/7 chance the deadline when processed under FOI would be on a Friday.

Now, we would have to ask what date did they use for the starting date under FOI? Was it the date of claimed receipt, was it the date Coyne put on his request, was it from the date of acknowledgement?

Examining all of the above we could then work out possible reasons for the reply falling on a Friday other than chance. Also we could then work out if there was any advantage for them to take it on as as FOI request, one by means of delaying response to the max amount of days under FOI, and two by insuring that reply date fell to the exact amount of days after the claimed start date or receipt to make it a Friday.

My point was if there's a one in seven chance of a response/decision deadline date falling on a Friday it was immensely convenient and lucky for them. The only other explanation may possibly be an engineered advantage by processing the request under FOI.

If the decision day deadline had fallen on a Thursday they would have had to release the previous Friday to get the advantage of burying over the weekend,also leaving them one less week to consider their calculated response and less time to be in receipt of the obscure legal advice they must have got.

Lets face it they must have been scratching their heads on how to come up with that decision right up to the last minute.

I do wonder though if they hadnt processed it under FOI could they have delayed the respond even further without any legal timing to respond by. I guess they would have been concerned with more notoriety if they had delayed a response even longer.
 
Last edited:
S

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
The request was sent on 13 November (a Friday) so 20 working days was indeed Friday.
 
Large Donner

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Sasha said:
The request was sent on 13 November (a Friday) so 20 working days was indeed Friday.
Click to expand...

Ah Quite bad luck then, but interesting to remember this in any future FOIs (although this was not under FOI) in order to negate this advantage for the responder by waiting until the last minute and replying on a Friday evening.
 
alex3619

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Sean said:
It will if we let anybody control and censor the damn thing, which governments and the rich and powerful are very keen to do.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are moves to limit public scrutiny of most things. There goes good governance. Hello to corruption and vested interest. Democracy is dying, globally, but the irony is its mostly being killed by financial interests, the heart of capitalism. From time to time I think democracy needs a restart, including new constitutions. It will take major crisis to initiate this in my opinion.
 
Woolie

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
Chrisb said:
Is this still correct and what implications would the discrediting of a major Government backed piece of research be likely to have on the universities' future income?
Click to expand...
Those in the UK may be able to clarify, but my understanding is that this would not impact directly on the Research Assessment exercise (RAE) - which rates the quality of the research at an institution, for the purposes of deciding the size of its slice of the government pie. I guess a retracted paper couldn't be used in that assessment (if it was otherwise eligible for consideration in the period being assessed) but a single retracted paper probably wouldn't affect the overall result that much. I suppose there could be indirect effects, because the authors involved might have less chances of getting further grants in the future (and grant funding counts in the RAE, I believe). And more general effects on the reputation of the institution, which may affect student interest, staff recruitment.

Generally speaking, I wouldn't think other researchers at the same institution would be affected, most of the important decisions that affect a researchers' career are not made on the basis of where they work, but rather what they personally do.

The University structure is very different from most companies. Much looser, with much more controlled by the individual researchers, and much more autonomy.

In fact, thinking about it, the Universities involved have a lot more to lose by trying to cover up. If I were them, I might consider throwing the researchers under the bus at this point.
 
C

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Yesterday a Labour MP was reported as having said that she would not knife Jeremy Corbyn in the back, she would knife him in the front. So far there are no reports that Corbyn is alleging harassment by all his MP's or that the police are investigating alleged threatening behaviour. Discussion seemed to be about matters of good taste.

Perhaps figurative use of language will soon be confined to the rulers. That should keep the rest of us straight.
 
W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Chrisb said:
Discussion seemed to be about matters of good taste.
Click to expand...
I did see some allegations of *ahem* "bullying" on Twitter. There will always be some people prepared to indulge in what Philips referred to as "clutching their pearls" when it aids them in having a go at someone they don't like.
 
S

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=87754

Notification from PLOS staff
Posted by PLoS_ONE_Group on 15 Dec 2015 at 11:19 GMT

Several readers have raised concerns regarding the analyses reported in this article. We are also aware that there have been requests for the data from this study.

The article was published in 2012; the PLOS data policy that applies to the article is that for submissions prior to March 3, 2014, which is outlined here: http://journals.plos.org/.... The policy expects authors ‘to make freely available any materials and information described in their publication that may be reasonably requested by others for the purpose of academic, non-commercial research’. The policy also notes that access to the data should not compromise confidentiality in the context of human-subject research.

PLOS ONE takes seriously concerns raised about publications in the journal as well as concerns about compliance with the journal’s editorial policies. PLOS staff are following up on the different concerns raised about this article as per our internal processes. As part of our follow up we are seeking further expert advice on the analyses reported in the article, and we will evaluate how the request for the data from this study relates to the policy that applies to the publication. These evaluations will inform our next steps as we look to address the concerns that have been noted.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back