Main content



Loading wiki pages...

Wiki Version:
## Live scratch pad (Google Doc) [][1] # Steps already taken Initiatives (cross-disciplinary) - COS [Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines][2] - COS [Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices][3] - [Qualitative Data Repository][4] (QDR) Initiatives (psychology-specific) - [Peer Reviewers' Openness (PRO) initiative][5] - [Editor Ethics 2.0][6], Article II (Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Management) Initiatives (political science) - [Data Access and Research Transparency][7] (DA-RT) - [Journal Editors Transparency Statement][8] (JETS) Initiatives (other disciplines) - [Coalition on Publishing Data in the Earth and Space Sciences][9] (COPDESS) Data-sharing policies and statements (psychology-specific) - APA, [Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standard 8.14][10] - APA Board of Scientific Affairs, [Statement on Data-Sharing][11] (June, 2015) Data-sharing policies and statements (other) - NIH: [general data][12] - NIH: [genomic data][13] (and [consent templates][14]) - [NSF][15] - Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences, National Research Council. 2003. [Sharing publication-related data and materials: Responsibilities of authorship in the life sciences.][16] Washington, DC: National Academies Press. - [Medical Research Council][17] (UK) - American Political Science Association (APSA), [Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science][18], Section A, Part 6 # Potentially relevant papers APS Observer article - [Finding a Home for Your Science: A Guide to Online Data Repositories][19] Empirical studies of data-(non)sharing - Wicherts, J.M. et al. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am. Psychologist. 61(7), pp.726-728. [*available under Files*] - [Vanpaemel, W. et al. (2015). Are we wasting a good crisis? The availability of psychological research data after the storm. Collabra. 1(1), Art. 3.][20] Researcher-centric norms: Culture change and incentives - [Pronk, T. E., Wiersma, P. H., van Weerden, A., & Schieving, F. (2015). A game theoretic analysis of research data sharing. PeerJ, 3, e1242.][21] - [Longo, D.L. & Drazen, J.M. (2016). Data sharing. NEJM. 374(3), pp.276-277.][22] *and* [Drazen, J.M. Data sharing and the Journal. NEJM. 374(19), pp.e24.][23] - [Bishop, D.V.M. (2016). Open research practices: unintended consequences and suggestions for averting them. (Commentary on the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative). Royal Society Open Science. 3:160109.][24] - [Morey, R.D. et al. (2016). The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review. R. Soc. open sci. 3:150547.][25] - [Gardner et al. (2003). Towards effective and rewarding data sharing. Neuroinformatics J. 1(3), pp.289-295.][26] - de Wolf et al. (2005). Part I: What is the requirement for data sharing?. IRB. 27(6), pp. 12-16. [*available under Files*] - [Evans, S.R. (2016). Gauging the purported costs of public data archiving for long-term population studies. PLoS Biol. 14(4), p. e1002432.][27] Research participant-centric norms: Balancing data sharing with participant privacy and autonomy - [Bishop, D.V.M. (2016)][28] - [Fung, B.C.M. et al. (2010). Privacy-Preserving data publishing: A survey of recent developments. ACM Comput. Surv. 42(4), Article 14, pp.1-53.][29] - [King, G. (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science. 331(6018), pp. 719-721.][30] - [Bryan Burnham, Open Data and IRBs, Open Science Collaboration blog (Feb. 5, 2014)][31] - [Sean Mackinnon, Privacy in the age of open data, Open Science Collaboration blog (Jan. 29, 2014)][32] - de Wolf et al. (2006). Part II: HIPAA and disclosure risk issues. IRB. 28(1), pp. 6-11. [*available under Files*] - de Wolf et al., (2006). Part III: Meeting the challenge when data sharing is required. IRB. 28(2), pp. 10-15. [*available under Files*] - Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632–1641. - Saunders, Kitzinger, and Kitzinger. (2015). Anonymising interview data: Challenges and compromise in practice. Qualitative Research, 15 (5), 616-632. # Question Prompts Bucket 1: Researcher-focused issues involving duties, incentives, and culture change - What do we mean by "data sharing"? Data may be shared more or less openly (e.g., automatically in a data repository vs. only upon request to "qualified researchers"; individual-level raw data vs. aggregate data), for example, and may be shared for different purposes (e.g., re-analysis vs. unrestricted purposes). - Are there sufficient incentives for researchers to engage in data sharing? - If not, what incentives would be feasible and appropriate (e.g., co-authorship vs. some sort of new form of scholarly credit, like a data set citation, vs. no credit because data sharing is simply an expectation). - Timing: How soon after collecting data must it be shared? As soon as the first paper is published or posted to a preprint archive? Within, say, six months of that publication? Whenever the original researcher feels that she has milked the data for all they're worth to her? - Should the answer to any of these questions be different for tenured and non-tenured faculty? For faculty at R1 institutions with teams of postdocs that can rapidly exploit a data set before releasing it and liberal arts faculty with heavy teaching loads and little or no help from grad students and postdocs? For data produced with public funding vs. not? Bucket 2: Research participant (i.e., "subjects")-focused issues involving data privacy and autonomy - Can data can be truly de-identified? What are the risks of re-identification for different kinds of data (e.g., sensitive data) and different research participants (e.g., members of various types of rare groups)? - Should participants have a say not just in what is done to them (i.e., in whether they participate in a survey, interview, or experiment that generates data) but also in how their data, once generated, are used? - For example, participants may be comfortable contributing data to one research project but not another, or to one researcher or research institution but not another. - On the other hand, it should be acknowledged (but frequently isn't) that sometimes participants have interests in their data being shared widely as opposed to be siloed, where they may do less good, less quickly. - What should the role of researchers, departments, IRBs, journals, and data repositories be in negotiating these potentially conflicting interests? - Should data sharing plans be included in the protocols that IRBs review? - Should research participants be asked to consent to data sharing in the informed consent documents they sign? - Do journals and data repositories have independent responsibility for reviewing the provenance of shared data? [1]: [2]: [3]: [4]: [5]: [6]: [7]:!2012-apsa-ethics-guide-changes/c13ay [8]:!blank/c22sl [9]: [10]: [11]: [12]: [13]: [14]: [15]: [16]: [17]: [18]: [19]: [20]: [21]: [22]: [23]: [24]: [25]: [26]: [27]: [28]: [29]: [30]: [31]: [32]: