|
|
|
|
|
|
by frankmcsherry
3803 days ago
|
|
|
If you put the omitted "..." back in to the quote, it makes it clearer that the "for their own ends" is about appropriating credit rather than testing alternate hypotheses. More importantly, the full paragraph starts "A second concern held by some is that...", signaling that this characterization is a not-universal opinion about what might be bad about data sharing. The very next paragraph argues that it doesn't have to be this way, which is the whole (missed?) point of the text. It's almost like the posts here are trying to make the authors' case about the hazards of data sharing for them. |
|
|
The real concern of the authors, as it appears to me, is that you "own" the data that you produce and should have the exclusive right to use it - they call it "obvious extension of the reported work".
How would data sharing work best? We think it should happen symbiotically, not parasitically. Start with a novel idea, one that is not an obvious extension of the reported work
On the other hand, if you have a novel idea, you are supposed to work "symbiotically" with the authors with relevant coauthorship:
Third, work together to test the new hypothesis. Fourth, report the new findings with relevant coauthorship to acknowledge both the group that proposed the new idea and the investigative group that accrued the data that allowed it to be tested
The problem is that science does not work this way. You cannot own the facts, as someone famously said. Imagine people in computer science or mathematics held the same attitude, especially in artificial intelligence/machine learning.