Open Data in Science
Correspondence: (Login to view email address)
- Unilever Centre, Department of Chemistry, Univeristy of Cambridge
This manuscript is a preprint. A published version is available at:
10.1016/j.serrev.2008.01.001 (Peer Reviewed) Published in Serials Review, March 2008.- Document Type:
- Manuscript
- Date:
- Received 18 January 2008 07:27 UTC; Posted 18 January 2008
- Subjects:
- Biotechnology, Chemistry, Genetics & Genomics, Molecular Cell Biology, Bioinformatics
- Abstract:
Open Data (OD) is an emerging term in the process of defining how scientific data may be published and re-used without price or permission barriers. Scientists generally see published data as belonging to the scientific community, but many publishers claim copyright over data and will not allow its re-use without permission. This is a major impediment to the progress of scholarship in the digital age. This article reviews the need for Open Data, shows examples of why Open Data are valuable and summarizes some early initiatives in formalizing the right of access to and re-use of scientific data.
Discussion
- Comments:
-
1 comment
- (Login to share with a colleague)
Additional information
- License:
- This document is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
- How to cite this document:
-
Murray-Rust, Peter. Open Data in Science. Available from Nature Precedings <http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2008.1526.1> (2008)
- Version info:
-
Published version:
10.1016/j.serrev.2008.01.001 (Peer Reviewed) Published in Serials Review, March 2008. -
Other versions of this document in Nature Precedings
None.
Other versions of this document elsewhere on the web
None known.
George McNamara on 20 February 2008 05:13 UTC
Hi Peter,
I am in the middle of reading your Nature Preceedings manuscript on Open Data. I mention near the end of my PubSpectra Cytometry article [Pubmed 16969821, available now as free full text through the publisher] that I had an epiphany while reading up on copyright law that data are facts, and facts cannot be copyrighted (U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with copyright case). Therefore, your argument with the ACS is moot with respect to the data in the supplemental information file.
You quote the ACS policy statement, ”... Files may be downloaded for personal use; users are not permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or resell any Supporting Information, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form. ...”, this is essentially the same as what is verbalized at the end of every televised sporting event in the USA, stuff like, “all accounts of this game are forbidden without the express written permission of [broadcaster and/or league] ...”. Taken literally, no one would be allowed to talk about a football or cricket match without “express written permission”. Can you imagine the producers ever going after your prime minister for mentioning the score of a match?
I have a suggestion for your next article or blog: pick a date and time to have every reader to email copyright [at] acs.org for permission to reproduce some supplemental information. You could provide suggested text. You could also helpfully provide a list of ACS official’s email addresses to CC: on the message.
Sincerely,
George