"814 (54%) authors of papers where data were indicated to be ‘available upon request’ responded to our data requests, and 226 (14%) either shared or indicated willingness to share all or some data." Also, the response bias was racist. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02129-8
"Available upon request" is fake open-washing that journal editors should not tolerate.
ht @petersuber #openscience @academicchatter
@philipncohen @petersuber @academicchatter
"Not enough time to get it together" is perhaps a legitimate excuse (especially for younger workers).
But if one fulfills a handful of requests ad hoc, that's more time spent than just getting it done once and for all in the first place.
Even so, to the extent that all possible friction in the process of making data available is eliminated surely that's better. Ideally, dead simple.
Start by eliminating local publisher technical idiosyncrasy?
@philipncohen @petersuber @academicchatter
(It seems as though an organization that was entirely focused on data retention, publishing as a specialty support mechanism for scientific publishing would be welcomed by all players-- including publishers?
Special sklls in accepting and storing vagaries of informational underpinnings of papers, which after all are likely countless? Why duplicate this work N times?
There are models for this already, thriving and making life better. doi.org, etc.)