Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5. Different Interpretations of Existing Standards
5. Different Interpretations of Existing Standards
Pages 61-68
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 61... ...
To illustrate more clearly the strain that exceptions place on the publication process, some of the common arguments in favor of exceptions are presented here and examined in the context of the principles of publication put forward in this report. The essential "value" of a scientific publication resides in the scientific finding and its implications as seen by the peer scientific community.
|
From page 62... ...
Taking the stance that authors need only furnish what is necessary to repeat one's experiments removes the value of the cumulative process of science and, considering how science is conducted today, is unrealistic. It is not possible, for example, to get a public research grant to repeat the experiment of another scientist.
|
From page 63... ...
-funded scientists might be able to request supplemental support to an existing grant to help distribute data (NIH, 2003~. It is not always possible to distribute materials or freely share data because of prior contractual agreements made with a research sponsor.
|
From page 64... ...
Who is more vulnerable: a starting researcher who has just finished a postdoctoral position in a famous laboratory, or a late-career researcher whose only research grant has just been turned down for renewal? The exposure to both benefit and risk associated with competitive activities triggered by publication must be shared equally by all participants in the publication process.
|
From page 65... ...
If the for-profit sector is not treated exceptionally, it may choose not to publish and instead charge for access to its data or materials. Moreover, some fields of the life sciences, such as plant biology, have received less public funding than others; in these fields, the for-profit sector is likely to be generating the most cutting-edge data and scientific findings.
|
From page 66... ...
There should be a single scientific community that operates under a single set of principles regarding the pursuit of knowledge, a common ethic with regard to the integrity of the scientific process, and a long-held commitment to the 66
|
From page 67... ...
Some of the research done in companies is basic research with no predictable commercial end point, whereas some academic laboratories are directly connected to companies via sponsored research agreements, collaborations, consulting agreements, or stock ownership. In the systematic and evolutionary biological community, nations often restrict the right of commercial firms to investigate or use biological samples for which they have aDowed export.
|
From page 68... ...
Considering that publication standards maintain quality and facilitate the work of the community in moving science forward, the committee observed that exceptions are likely to weaken the effectiveness of that process over the long term: Universal adherence, without exception, to a principle offuB disclosure and unrestricted access to data and materials wig promote cooperation and prevent divisiveness in the scientific community, maintain the value and prestige of publication, and promote the progress of science.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.