Abstract

In the New England Journal of Medicine, Longo and Drazen critically assessed the concept of data sharing. Their main concern is that a new class of person will emerge that uses data, which were gathered by other researchers, for their own original questions. The authors referred to this class of researcher as research parasites. Longo and Drazen are right when they note that scientific data sharing deserves more recognition. However, they indicate that the most adequate form of recognition for data sharing is coauthorship. They suggest to work symbiotically, rather than parasitically, with the investigators holding the data, moving the field forward in a way that neither group could have done on its own. Although this is true in particular cases, co-authorship as the sole instrument of credit will unnecessarily restrict the potential of data sharing. More suitable instruments for giving credit where credit is due would be a much greater appreciation of data sharing by communities by introducing citations of data sets, bestowing awards for good datasets, and considering data production when assessing scientists' career prospects, funding applications, and outputs.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.