It's OAWeek! Watch this panel discussion to find out how SpringerNature and figshare are supporting authors in open science practices:
Graham Smith, Dr Maria Hodges and Dr Erika PastranaResearchers are increasingly encouraged to share data supporting their publications. The case for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable data is reflected in a growing number of policies and initiatives to make this achievable while supporting data integrity and openness.
4:09 Saying, As of January 2023, you will have to make your data available when you publish your paper. We've seen the OSTP memo come out since then as well. 4:52 It's proving to be full of questions full of different areas where we can get hung up on this, but one of those interesting things when we do the state of open data The FIG share in Spring, an HSA to open data every year. We survey researchers to try and understand what they're thinking, and what's motivating them to do things.
5:53 Well, if you ask them who researchers would be willing to receive support from to help in reviewing, curating, and preparing their data for public release, we have 41% saying they really rely on the publishers. 7:50 Yeah. Sure. Thanks small, Can we, We have quite a unique perspective on this, because, as you say, we've been collaborating on the State of open Data report that comes out every year, which gets great insight from researchers about what some of the key challenges are. So, we have this year on year insight, right?
10:04 And we've seen a lot of movements recently, to actually improve access to the solutions that help data sharing for research is just in a better way.10:16 We have aye for coming from a purely data repository sense of the world. 11:22 So this brings up additional challenges about sensitive information, that we tend to have more patient information, more genomic information.11:35 So, researchers obviously, have to comply with the legal requirements of their country, and the ethical review boards.
13:23 We can see it, and in increasing, but the more that we start to do that, starts to be normal, I think, more than begin to tackle the challenge of giving credit and citations. 14:24 A publisher, sets of issues that need to be worked through in order to try and support this, which some people could say, Hey, you know, publishers don't need to do this, but, obviously, we've seen writ large publishers have stepped up and gone above and beyond, um, but it's a lot of work, Right?14:46 I think one of the key issues for publishers and, you know, getting around these policies, is that, you know, they resonate with us as much as they do with the research community...
16:03 So, you know, publishers like us, and many others have been thinking for many years now as to, you know, how do we really make that publication more attuned to what research is now? And a lot of the research can be shared digitally in a different way than it was before. 16:58 So, you know, for us, I think, and many others, it's about thinking about how we embrace those policies with new workflows and new systems, so that we can embed into the publication.17:21 The way we feel we add value to, to the paper, The story, through things like peer review, management of peer review, you know, editing and all this stuff that, you know, we feel, if, if the data is an essential part of that paper, we can help authors share that data.
18:58 But it wasn't. And there's a whole legacy of incentive structures that are going on. And on the paper is always going to be the context. The king or the queen, the understanding of the story is what I did, and here's what I found. And the data in the code is just, and here's how you can help you. help yourself add to it.
20:19 I feel that the researchers probably don't push back on publishers as much as they push back on Twitter about funders. Would you agree with that? 21:52 You know, personally, I also feel, you know, when we look at other outputs like the preprint, for example, we see in some communities like the physics community that the publication and the preprint have run in parallel for many, many years. Without really colliding with each other. And, and being perfectly sort of flourishing in their own niches, right. You can publish the preprint and then you can also get published. And both things are, you know, enriching science in some way.
24:46 And, as I say, for one of the legacy rules around publications, the one great thing about it is, for me, again, in the data world, referencing papers, talking about papers makes it very easy to understand when someone says, I'm going to need to delete my data. Now.
25:56 Yeah, definitely, Yeah, no, I mean, I would just build on the points the Erika ... think very useful in putting those mandates. 28:24 one of the great strengths, I think, of having us a policy framework like this is it allows you to then build on it. It's not the be all, and end all. And, in fact, if you look at policies to introduce initially, a lot them simply encourage data sharing, or encourage data availability statements.
30:40 I was saying about integrations, with repositories and nudging people into best practice, that that's, you know, a lot of work. That's a lot of stuff to do. 31:38 So we check every manuscript is a statement there and at least, you know, once you've got a statement, you can then begin to examine. It is plausible that the data is available on request, is this legitimate and in this circumstance So it does allow us to to question and it also helps review is really, really important.32:10 And this is really important.
33:09 Or how do we, how do we move the needle on from there? And, you know, what you were saying about genomics as well being some, some things it makes.33:21 The human genome was sequenced in 2001. It's relatively new science. It's all computational. 34:12 Yes. And I will tell you the position wherein so of those 2000 journals, around half of them already have a policy that requires Data availability statement and enforces certain dice to be deposited. That's really the direction we're moving. And I think as Maria alluded to, that's, that's where we're going with this. We are getting to a point where we, we can see all of our Jones moving towards that requirement for transparency around where the data are actually shed.
36:01 The people who are applying for grants is, you know, Is person with this OK, to apply for this, got this grant, and use the funding to create all of these outputs, whatever these outputs are. 36:58 So I think of it like the researchers, you know, data is on their radar, but so it was getting an old kid.
38:11 Now, let's give them some support and see if that sort of helps compliance and helps everybody follow best practices. 38:55 But the way we want to think about it is, is and, you know, since we're making all an effort, now to think about open research more widely. Right, and that that came out of the UNESCO recommendations, and a lot of different institutions that have put together documentation recently about certain aspects, like Open Access. Why limit yourself to open access right to just the paper? Let's think about the detail is, Think about the code.
41:22 But, you know, we've now integrated some of this, you know, in a very, sort of, user centric way, where we're trying to make it sort of, easy for the author, as are coming in, to think about sharing and supporting that sharing in a way that is, you know, more embedded into how we work with them.41:45 I think one thing there, as well, is just the Evian you mentioned, to like five things like peer review, we're gonna talk about peer review.
43:04 I think one thing that I found interesting was this idea that the researchers, they are positive around open research and open science, and, and they're starting to, it's the numbers around the positivity, is starting to dwindle a little bit. 43:55 My feeling is that the fund is, are on board with this, and that will see a change over time at the moment. The funders are encouraging, and strongly encouraged.
45:00 And it will be interesting, I think there's a whole new area, I think now, What do we expect to see in the humanities and social science as well? 45:56 by colleagues and saying, there's a bit of a negative sentiment about dropping about open science. You know, I say, I'd say to my, my postdoc by, postdoc colleagues, you know you're going to share your data. Is that, why would I share my data? Then? Like that, I can get scooped by my competitors, right? So, the fact that, that has moved on and we're past that point now, you'll still get that, I'm sure.
47:44 The the level of concern around a lot of misuse of data, which I think was something is also very strong during the pandemic.47:57 And perhaps some of the concern about those, just being misused, misinterpreted, and you know some keys ice points, they relate to you know, I've already treatment bogus treatments for for covalent real just research malpractice.
50:21 And the, the really interesting stat I found was 75% of researchers who responded said, You know, I still feel we're not getting enough credit of those people who'd shared data. 66% of them had said, I have received some impact, whether it's in the majority, in the form of a citation, or a collaboration, or something.
51:04 We do have a couple. So the first one was for Maria, so really interesting to hear. The reviewers are actually asking for the data. Do you get the impression that the reviewers are actually reviewing the data and analysis alongside the article?51:25 But, yes, oh, we'll say it is most striking amongst genomics that they will ask.51:39 There's a very high awareness of the importance of sharing, and people do on the whole, the accession numbers present in the manuscript.
53:27 And it's a similar thing. If you were saying you must share your data at this point, it's maybe, you know, at the point of submission of an manuscript is probably a bit too late to be thinking about doing a whole process of research data management. 54:36 So so you know, if you have a policy and you need to stick to it and I guess for the author to some degree the race, there is a risk in being scooped if it's a longer hit peer review process.