Christina's LIS Rant

This is the final in my practice essays before taking the real comps test in the end of July.  I need to correct the record, though. Apparently although all of these questions came from my advisor, he didn’t write them all. These were ones proposed by committee members and rejected for inclusion in the exam. (the gap in numbers you see are two essays that didn’t go well). This particular question might be by my advisor with an ok from the two STS committee members. I didn’t have any STS questions to practice with so he came up with this one – which I think is an excellent question.

question:

Discuss the forces that move scientists towards open sharing of information and the countervailing forces that prevent scientists from sharing information or encourage them to actively guard information. You may want to distinguish between information on research problems and hypotheses, raw data / data sets, information on methods and apparatus, and information on results. Consider the role of technology in your answer.

I know, right? :)

My answer:

0. Introduction

In the past two decades, much controversy and discussion has centered on public access to scientific information, the cost of scholarly journals, and information sharing within science. There are many strong forces that encourage scientists to share and equally many countervailing forces that discourage scientists from sharing. This essay describes these forces and role of technology. The essay ends by considering the role of various mandates in supporting information and data sharing in science.

1. Forces That Encourage Scientists to Share

There are many forces acting on scientists to encourage them to share information and data. These include:

  • wider recognition
  • finding collaborators and making information available within collaborations
  • making scientific information available to the public, scientists not in research institutions, and for data mining or serendipitous location
  • for generalized reciprocity, in order to get data
  • to increase the speed of science or creatively solve problems

1.1 Recognition

Science runs on reputation and recognition; that is, promotion, tenure, winning grants, and attracting graduate students all depend on successful publication of research results in prestigious journals and the citedness of those journal publications. Research has shown that there are many correlates to higher citation rates outside of the quality of the document. These include:

  • article is on the cover
  • article is discussed in the media
  • article is a review article
  • article is longer
  • article is in a more prestigious publication
  • article is open access.

This final correlate is somewhat disputed as there are studies showing both that open access does favorably impact citedness, immediacy, and usage as well as studies showing no statistically significant correlation between open access and citedness over the long term. Even if open access is not significant, we can see that being on the cover and being discussed in the media are both ways that the research is brought to the attention of other scholars. The point is that information sharing with the media increases article citation and recognition of the scientists.

Likewise the sharing of data, workflows, and algorithms in disciplinary repositories can lead to greater recognition of the scientist and his or her lab. Deposits to disciplinary repositories are signed, so high quality results are attributable to their source. The technology of the repository and standards for information structures within repositories make the shared information findable and useful.

1.2 Collaboration

In addition to recognition for promotion, tenure, and grants, recognition can also help in finding new collaborators and in sharing information within collaborations. By seeing the contributions of a person to a data, workflow, or e-print repository, a scientist looking for collaborators can judge the relevance of that person’s experience and can also assess his or her expertise in an area.

Once scientists are in a collaboration, open and free information sharing is necessary for trust and to make the project work. This seems obvious but it must still be stated as the lack of information sharing within collaborations is frequently listed as a reason collaborations fail.

1.3 Making information available outside of the invisible college

Despite the frequent mentions in the literature that scientists do not want to consider the societal impact of their research (Polyani, Merton) and do not want to communicate with the public (Weigold), recent surveys indicate that 75% of scientists do communicate with the media about their research and most scientists want their research to be useful and used. Forces moving scientists toward open information sharing include making information available and useful:

  • to scientists who cannot afford toll access to the literature
  • to scientists outside of the particular research area
  • for data mining
  • to the public.

1.3.1 Scientists without toll access

Scientists who are not in large research institutions do not have the same access to the literature because many of the abstracting and indexing services and journals are extremely expensive. Scientists publish in open access journals, post e-prints to their web pages or repositories, or respond favorably to reprint requests to make their research available to these scientists. There is some altruism involved, but the point of publication is to make the results of research available, so sharing of publications does this.

1.3.2 Serendipitous Finds

Scientists who share information in places indexed by major search engines enable serendipitous discovery by researchers outside of the invisible college. Scientists within the research area likely know what labs are doing which work and have access to new research results. Scientists outside of the research area might happen upon this work when looking for something else.

1.3.3 Data mining

In many if not most or all areas of science, computational methods that leverage large collections of data are being used to make new knowledge. Scientists are encouraged to share information and data without restrictive licenses to enable these new uses.

1.3.4. The Public

Open sharing of information with the public can have a positive impact on the government funding of research as well as showing return on past investments in science. Besides getting government funding, scientists can be altruistic, too. While rare, there are often-touted examples of parents researching the biomedical literature to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of their sick children.

1.4 Reciprocity

Scientists might share data for specific or generalized reciprocity. In other words, scientists might share data in order to get data from another scientist in particular or in hopes of getting data in the future from some other scientist.

1.5 Speeding Up Science

Scientists might want to share information openly to get feedback and to solve problems and to speed up the cycle of science. Posting of data or publications on a web page prior to official publication makes that information usable sooner and to a larger group. Many scientific instruments output electronic information. This information can be shared in real time via the web to allow multiple simultaneous diverse uses.

2. Forces That Prevent or Discourage Scientists from Sharing

There are many forces acting on scientists to discourage them from sharing information and data. These include:

  • fear of being scooped or ideas being stolen
  • Inglefinger-type rules preventing information sharing prior to publication
  • intellectual property concerns of the organization
  • sensitivities of information regarding human subjects or national security
  • concern over misuse of information by anti-science groups
  • effort required to describe or format information for deposit or reuse

2.1 Being Scooped

Scientists sometimes do not want to share data until they have “wrung” all of the possible publishable science out of it. The concerns are that another scientist will publish the same information more quickly without the expense of gathering the data or that another scientist will find different information in the data that the original scientist missed (Birnholtz).

Indeed, a cited form of misbehavior in peer review is that the reviewer who is a competitor might use information in the submitted article or might hold up publication of an article until his or her own article is published first.

Some conferences and small workshops do not consider information shared to be “published” and there are guidelines on how this information can be used. Nevertheless, attendees might act on the information and might publish first.

2.2 Inglefinger Rules

The Inglefinger rule from the New England Journal of Medicine states that the journal will not publish any information previously presented in any venue or discussed with the media. Similarly, many journals have an embargo on discussing findings with the media until the date of publication of the journal or the posting of the article on the journal’s web page in “early view.” Scientists might not share information if they fear that by sharing they will not be able to publish in a prestigious journal. Some of these rules were strengthened after the cold fusion episode in which the scientists held press conferences before peer review of their work. Subsequent peer review and evaluation by other scientists found that their results were not reproducible.

2.3 Intellectual Property Concerns

Scientists might be prevented from sharing data or publishing if their organization intends to patent their discovery. Discussing a discovery or publishing the results starts a clock for patent application or can prevent a patent from being filed.

2.4 Sensitivities

Scientists who work with human subjects or with national security information might be discouraged from sharing due to sensitivities about protecting the privacy of the subjects or concerns over export control or classified information. There are ways to anonymize human subjects data but this still presents a barrier. Likewise, scientific facts should not be classified, but the sensitivities of the research funder trump the forces encouraging the scientists to share information.

2.5 Concern Over Misuse

Open sharing of research using animal experimentation or stem cell research has endangered the physical security of the researchers. By publishing in obscure disciplinary journals, the information is available to other scientists but less likely to attract attention from anti-science groups who have reacted violently in the past. Short of these violent reactions, scientists might be concerned that their research will not be understood.

2.6 Effort Required

Finally, a force acting against the sharing of data is the effort required to describe and make data accessible for wider use. In some fields it is quite easy and straightforward to share data in pre-existing, established, and well-supported repositories. In other fields there might not be any repositories or what repositories exist might be fragmented and with uneven funding and support (Borgman). It is often easier to save the data on a cd-rom in a box under your desk than to properly document it and find a place to store it online.

3. Mandates

Despite the competing forces that encourage and discourage scientists from sharing information, there are mandates to share information coming from several sources. First, funding bodies may require submission of a journal publication to an open repository as a condition of accepting the grant and funders of big science projects require them to make resulting data freely available online. Second, research institutions may mandate submission of publications to the institutional repository for all of their scholars. Third and most successfully so far, groups of journals in a research area might require that the supporting data be submitted to a repository at the time of publication.

5. Conclusion

There are many competing forces moving scientists to share and not to share data, workflows, and publications. The salience of each of these depends on a number of factors not discussed explicitly above but including:

  • the norms and the culture of the research area (sub-discipline)
  • the existence of standards and established infrastructure to support sharing
  • the funding source for the research
  • the scientist’s employer
  • the scientist’s place in his or her field (in other words, an established scientist might be less concerned with being scooped)

Information scientists can support information sharing by removing barriers related to finding a repository and making the deposit of data or publications. Likewise, we can address ways to secure information such that only those who should have access do. We can also help scientists discuss information sharing with publishers and other scientists to make these concerns explicit and to remove unnecessary barriers.

Technology has facilitated information sharing and discovery, but it alone does not address the cultural and social barriers to information sharing. Ultimately, understanding the social aspects of science along with the technological requirements for information sharing is needed to encourage scientists to share.

Comments

  1. #1 Jed Rothwell
    June 30, 2009

    You wrote:

    “Some of these rules were strengthened after the cold fusion episode in which the scientists held press conferences before peer review of their work. Subsequent peer review and evaluation by other scientists found that their results were not reproducible.”

    That is incorrect. Cold fusion has been replicated in over 200 major laboratories (Storms), in roughly 17,000 tests (J. He, Inst. High Energy Phys., Chinese Academy of Sciences).

    I have a collection of 1,200 peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion copied from the library at Los Alamos, and 2,000 others from conference proceedings, national laboratories and others sources. I have uploaded a bibliography of 3,500 papers, and several hundred full text papers here:

    http://lenr-canr.org

    I suggest you review this literature more carefully before discussing this research.

    Also, Fleischmann and Pons had a peer-reviewed paper in print before the press conference. There were delays circulating it with 1989 technology, but if this happened today, full copies would be available on the internet.

  2. #2 Inna
    June 30, 2009

    An interesting point on the role of technology in science communication here http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/4591050a.html
    Blogs and twitter take sharing on another level.

  3. #3 Christina Pikas
    June 30, 2009

    Mr. Rothwell:
    There has been careful analysis of the cold fusion episode – for lack of a better term. Whether or not the science is valid (and most believe it is not good science), the fact remains that other labs could not reproduce the results based on the information provided, and the media circus was amazing. Indeed, according to Lewenstein [*] the public announcement was 3/23/89 and the first preprints were circulated 4/12/89 at ACS in Dallas.

    Oh, and you missed the entire point of this quote and my essay.

    * Lewenstein, B.V.(1995) From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25, 403-36.

  4. #4 bsci
    June 30, 2009

    Just wanted to say I’m glad you noted effort required (2.6). This one is often ignored or treated as a minor issue, but it’s often quite complex to both make the data publicly accessible and to make it accessible in a way where others are able to productively query the data. For all the serious issues of 2.1-5, I think if it was easier to share data there would be more motive to address the other issues. The fields that have created quality, easy data sharing seem to have solved many of the other issues.

  5. #5 Jed Rothwell
    July 1, 2009

    You wrote:

    “There has been careful analysis of the cold fusion episode – for lack of a better term.”

    Yes, there have been several. See the books by Mallove and Beaudette, for example.

    “Whether or not the science is valid (and most believe it is not good science), . . . the fact remains that other labs could not reproduce the results based on the information provided . . .”

    That is incorrect. Several groups replicated within a few months based on the information provided. That is what these groups reported in the peer-reviewed literature. By Sept. 1990, 92 laboratories replicated. See:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

    “. . . and the media circus was amazing.”

    The media circus was amazing but it was not the fault of Fleischmann and Pons. You can see the complete video of the press conference on YouTube, and you will see that they made no assertions that were not confirmed by other researchers within a few months, except for the neutron measurements.

    Any scientific breakthrough of this magnitude would have triggered a media circus. Also, calling press conferences was then and remains today the norm. Tokamak plasma fusion researchers, for example, call press conferences to announce results as soon as they run an experiment, sometimes months or years before they publish.

    Also, your assertion that “most [scientists] believe it is not good science” may be correct but it is irrelevant. Most scientists have not read the literature and know nothing about the research, so they have no basis for any opinion, positive or negative. Science is not a popularity contest. Roughly 2,000 scientists have successfully replicated this experiment. All of them are convinced the effect is real. Most scientists with relevant expertise in calorimetry and or electrochemistry who have read the literature are also completely convinced the effect is real. For example, the late Prof. Heinz Gerischer, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin wrote:

    “In spite of my earlier conclusion, — and that of the majority of scientists, — that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”

    To take another recent example, Prof. Robert Duncan is an expert in calorimetry. CBS sent him to Israel and SRI to review some cold fusion experiments, and interviewed him on “60 Minutes” on April 19, 2009, which you can view on line. (See the LENR-CANR.org News section for links.) He was entirely convinced that cold fusion is real. More importantly, he held a seminar on May 27, 2009 in which he and several leading researchers presented data. (This video is also on line.) The seminar was attended by ~30 senior professors from U. Missouri and other universities. They were new to the field but they had all have relevant expertise. After the U.S. Navy researchers finished their presentations, one of them asked the audience members whether they now believe cold fusion is real. All of them raised their hands.

    In short, when experts learn the facts about cold fusion, they are nearly always convinced that the effect is real. This is because the evidence is overwhelmingly positive, with very high s/n ratios. For example, heat has been measured repeatedly at ~100 W with no input, and tritium at 100 million times background.

  6. #6 Jed Rothwell
    July 1, 2009

    By the way, your overall essay is excellent, and spot on. As you say, technology helps but it has not removed the “cultural and social barriers to information sharing.” This is a big problem for cold fusion researchers in China and India who cannot afford subscriptions to peer-reviewed journals.

    I have often spoken with Bruce Lewenstein and I think he would agree with your analysis.

    Your statements about cold fusion happen to be wrong, but the rest of this essay is correct.

    Cold fusion does not follow the usual patterns of scientific publication because most journals reject papers without review, and most researchers are afraid to publish positive results. Professors who published positive results in the past have been attacked in the mass media as “frauds” and “lunatics,” and they have been subjected to harassment ranging from having their equipment sabotaged to being railroaded out of their jobs, reassigned to menial tasks outside the lab, threats of deportation, and being called before Congressional investigations by Rep. Miller, who accuses them of fraud and demands their personal correspondence and back taxes.

    There is no secret conspiracy to suppress cold fusion, but there is active, overt, non-conspiratorial activity to prevent the research and fire anyone who engages in it. This opposition conducted by a small group of powerful people such as Robert Park, Zimmerman, the past and present editors of the Scientific American, Richard Garwin, John Huizenga and several plasma fusion scientists. Their activities are well documented in various books and newspaper articles that they themselves wrote. I have spoken with these people many times and I believe they are sincerely convinced that all cold fusion scientists are criminals and lunatics who deserve this treatment. They believe that they are defending science against “charlatans” who are out to destroy it. Park and Zimmerman brag about “rooting out and firing” cold fusion researchers. That is what they tell me and what they write in the mass media. I have no reason to doubt they mean it.

    Academic politics can be vicious.

  7. #7 abb3w
    July 10, 2009

    1,2,3,5…

    4?

  8. #8 Christina Pikas
    July 10, 2009

    oops

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.