The main issue of ClimateGate that is often overlooked is the attempts by scientists to avoid releasing their data, either voluntarily or under FOIA actions. I am reposting this because I would like to advance this issue, possibly with a petition, similar to the letter by 255 scientists to Science Magazine.
Both Science Magazine and Nature Magazine have detailed requirements for data archiving. The NSF has requirements that need improving. It is hard to understand why Nature, having a sound policy that states, “An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims” could defend those who went to extreme measures to prevent disclosure.
Excerpts of Science Magazine’s policy are as follows:
“Data and materials availability All data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science. After publication, all reasonable requests for materials must be fulfilled. Any restrictions on the availability of data or materials, including fees and original data obtained from other sources (Materials Transfer Agreements), must be disclosed to the editors upon submission. Fossils or other rare specimens must be deposited in a public museum or repository and available for research.
Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, appropriate data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, atomic coordinates or electron microscopy maps for macromolecular structures, and climate data) must be deposited in an approved database, and an accession number or a specific access address must be included in the published paper. We encourage compliance with MIBBI guidelines (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations).”
Further on, it states:
- “Climate data. Data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases.”
Nature Magazine’s & Nature Journals’ policy goes a lot further.
“Availability of data and materials
An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission. Any restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript, including details of how readers can obtain materials and information. If materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, this should be stated in the paper.
Supporting data must be made available to editors and peer-reviewers at the time of submission for the purposes of evaluating the manuscript. Peer-reviewers may be asked to comment on the terms of access to materials, methods and/or data sets; Nature journals reserve the right to refuse publication in cases where authors do not provide adequate assurances that they can comply with the journal’s requirements for sharing materials.
After publication, readers who encounter refusal by the authors to comply with these policies should contact the chief editor of the journal (or the chief biology/chief physical sciences editors in the case of Nature). In cases where editors are unable to resolve a complaint, the journal may refer the matter to the authors’ funding institution and/or publish a formal statement of correction, attached online to the publication, stating that readers have been unable to obtain necessary materials to replicate the findings.”
Nature’s requirements are precise and have teeth to enforce them. But is “materials, data and associated protocols” sufficient? According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, protocol in this use means, “a detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or procedure.” Is this sufficient to, “to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims”? Does it include any computer codes that are not publicly available? Secondly, Science specifies that, “Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, appropriate data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, atomic coordinates or electron microscopy maps for macromolecular structures, and climate data) must be deposited in an approved database, and an accession number or a specific access address must be included in the published paper.”
The NSA, which I believe controls much of the US federally funded research, by comparison, is woefully inadequate. It reads as follows:
36. Sharing of Findings, Data, and Other Research Products
a. NSF expects significant findings from research and education activities it supports to be promptly submitted for publication, with authorship that accurately reflects the contributions of those involved. It expects investigators to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages awardees to share software and inventions or otherwise act to make the innovations they embody widely useful and usable.
b. Adjustments and, where essential, exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of
individuals and subjects, the validity of results, or the integrity of collections or to accommodate legitimate interests of investigators
This has so many holes it must have been written by Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al. Just what does, “safeguard the validity of results” mean? To protect the esteemed researcher from being embarrassed by M&M? Who is a researcher? Definitely not a blogger. What is “incremental cost”, “reasonable time” & “legitimate interests of investigators?”
Proposed Strawman
I have taken exerpts from Science and Nature publication policies, deletions are lined out and insertions are in bold. I welcome comments.
From Nature & Science,
An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Supporting data, defined as all data,
methods & software necessary to understand, assess, replicate and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader.
From Science:
Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, appropriate supporting data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, atomic coordinates or electron microscopy maps for macromolecular structures, and climate data) must be deposited in an approved database, and an accession number or a specific access address must be included in the published paper.
From Nature:
Supporting data must be made available to editors and peer-reviewers at the time of submission for the purposes of evaluating the manuscript. Peer-reviewers may will be asked required to comment on the terms of access to materials, methods and/or data sets; Nature journals reserve the right to refuse publication in cases where authors do not provide adequate assurances that they can comply with the journal’s requirements for sharing materials. have not archived all supporting data in an approved publicly available database.
The following paragraph from Nature, if the previous paragraph is adhered to, should be unnecessary:
“After publication, readers who encounter refusal by the authors to comply with these policies should contact the chief editor of the journal (or the chief biology/chief physical sciences editors in the case of Nature). In cases where editors are unable to resolve a complaint, the journal may refer the matter to the authors’ funding institution and/or publish a formal statement of correction, attached online to the publication, stating that readers have been unable to obtain necessary materials to replicate the findings.”
Granted, there may be exceptions, and the one from Science should be included.
“Any restrictions on the availability of data or materials, including fees and original data obtained from other sources (Materials Transfer Agreements), must be disclosed to the editors upon submission. Fossils or other rare specimens must be deposited in a public museum or repository and available for research.”
Last but not least, the source of the funding should be presented in the abstract of the paper.
COMMENTS
No Comments