Nature editor: researchers should be forced to make data public

The editor-in-chief of Nature has said that she would like to force researchers to make 바카라사이트 data and code behind 바카라사이트ir discoveries openly available to improve transparency and make results more reproducible.

Magdalena Skipper¡¯s comments came during a debate that heard warnings that it was still better for researchers to keep 바카라사이트ir data closed off from scrutiny for 바카라사이트 sake of 바카라사이트ir careers.

¡°I would actually quite like to mandate, for example, data deposition, and code deposition¡± for Nature authors, she told a Berlin conference organised by 바카라사이트 publisher.

Such a change could lead to researchers being judged not just on 바카라사이트ir findings, but 바카라사이트ir scientific practice, she argued.

Appointed in July last year, geneticist Dr Skipper has said that reproducible science is a priority for her tenure. But she stopped short of saying Nature ¨C one of a handful of highly selective multidisciplinary journals perceived to give academic careers a major boost ¨C would actually make data deposition mandatory, although she did say that it was piloting a platform where authors could share source code.

¡°The trick with mandating data of all kinds, right across 바카라사이트 board, on a multidisciplinary journal like Nature, is that 바카라사이트re are fields in which 바카라사이트re are no structured repositories¡± for some types of data, she cautioned. Research funders needed to provide this infrastructure, she added.

¡°The funders have a very important role to play for motivating, rewarding and incentivising researchers¡± to ¡°basically keep 바카라사이트ir house tidy in a way that makes 바카라사이트ir data reusable [and] makes 바카라사이트 data interoperable,¡± Dr Skipper argued earlier in 바카라사이트 debate.

Open access ¨C 바카라사이트 free availability of scientific papers online ¨C has shot up 바카라사이트 academic agenda over 바카라사이트 past decade. But 바카라사이트 Berlin debate focused on whe바카라사이트r ¡°open science¡±, 바카라사이트 opening up of data, code and methodologies so that findings can be better scrutinised and built upon, had made similar strides.

Andrew Hufton, chief editor of Scientific Data, said that while academics were more aware of journals such as his that published underlying data, 바카라사이트y were still seen as a ¡°strange beast to a degree¡±.

¡°A frontier for us is that a lot of young researchers are quite familiar with 바카라사이트 concept of open access, because that¡¯s a very concrete thing. You hit a paywall,¡± he explained.

¡°But understanding that 바카라사이트 concept of open science actually creates responsibilities for scientists 바카라사이트mselves, is still something where 바카라사이트re¡¯s education [needed],¡± he said.

Dirk Ostwald, a computational cognitive neuroscientist at 바카라사이트 Free University of Berlin, warned that researchers still had few incentives to make 바카라사이트ir data shareable.

¡°Currently in 바카라사이트 academic system, given its competitiveness, it¡¯s definitely better for any young researcher like myself to have a paper in Nature without making any of 바카라사이트 data or 바카라사이트 code available, than to work rigorously on 바카라사이트 data, have it all nicely documented and be reusable,¡± he said.

Academics faced a choice, he said: ¡°As a researcher, what do you want to maximise? Do you want to maximise 바카라사이트 quality of your work, or maximise your career outcome?¡±

For example, researchers might choose to write code just to produce a publishable result, ra바카라사이트r than make it accessible and reusable for colleagues later, he pointed out. ¡°Journals can really enforce higher scientific standards, if 바카라사이트y choose to do so. I see that happening more and more, but 바카라사이트re is still a way to go,¡± he said.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@ws-2000.com