mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

366K
active users

Philip N Cohen

"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. nature.com/articles/s41597-023

"Available upon request" is fake open-washing that journal editors should not tolerate.
ht @petersuber @academicchatter

NatureEstimating social bias in data sharing behaviours: an open science experiment - Scientific DataOpen data sharing is critical for scientific progress. Yet, many authors refrain from sharing scientific data, even when they have promised to do so. Through a preregistered, randomized audit experiment (N = 1,634), we tested possible ethnic, gender and status-related bias in scientists’ data-sharing willingness. 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. While our preregistered hypotheses regarding bias in data-sharing willingness were not confirmed, we observed systematically lower response rates for data requests made by putatively Chinese treatments compared to putatively Anglo-Saxon treatments. Further analysis indicated a theoretically plausible heterogeneity in the causal effect of ethnicity on data-sharing. In interaction analyses, we found indications of lower responsiveness and data-sharing willingness towards male but not female data requestors with Chinese names. These disparities, which likely arise from stereotypic beliefs about male Chinese requestors’ trustworthiness and deservingness, impede scientific progress by preventing the free circulation of knowledge.

@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.)