Who should archive research data? | Science and the Media - Physics Today

"Articles in the 9 August issue of Science examine a pair of internet-age science-communication questions. One begins by asking, With the rise of open public access, 'Who pays for data infrastructure?' Another begins by asking, 'What does it take to run a website where scientists can chat freely about published papers?' At the very end of Science's Policy Forum commentary addressing data infrastructure, Francine Berman of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Vint Cerf of Google summarize the scientific publishing problem that they want to begin solving: 'Public access presupposes that the research data supported by public funding will be available when they are sought. Such availability is dependent on the existence of effective data infrastructure, i.e., to access data, they must be hosted somewhere, and someone must fund the human and technological infrastructure that hosts the data. Without viable economic models for this infrastructure, valuable research data may disappear, making it accessible to no one and deterring us from making the most of our research investments.' The authors' solution is strong partnerships among sectors. For the US, they suggest, 'The public access for research data stewardship problem could begin to be addressed through four coordinated approaches': * Facilitate private-sector stewardship of public access to research data. * Use public-sector investment to jumpstart sustainable stewardship solutions in other sectors. * Create and clarify public-sector stewardship commitments for public access to research data. * Encourage research culture change to take advantage of what works in the private sector. The second article—a News Focus piece under the headline 'The Web's faceless judges'—considers PubPeer, which it calls 'the latest forum' for trying to take advantage of the internet to conduct 'free-ranging discussion of published papers.' Science focuses on the anonymity component and reports that PubPeer 'can only succeed, say its anonymous founders, if participants are able to keep their identities hidden.' PubPeer says of itself that it 'seeks to create an online community that uses the publication of scientific results as an opening for fruitful discussion among scientists.' Scientists 'can comment on almost any scientific article.' The 'chief goal' is 'to provide the means for scientists to work together to improve research quality, as well as to create improved transparency that will enable the community to identify and bring attention to important scientific advancements.' PubPeer also summarizes its origin, staffing, and anonymity principle: PubPeer started from the lack of post-publication peer discussion on journal websites. Thus was born an idea for a website where open peer review was not intimidating to users and where the rigor and anonymity of the closed review process currently used by the major journals would be maintained. The site has been put together by a diverse team of early-stage scientists in collaboration with programmers who have collectively decided to remain anonymous in order to avoid personalizing the website, and to avoid circumstances in which involvement with the site might produce negative effects on their scientific careers. Science's article describes complaints about journals' efforts to host and sustain online discussions and reports that when 'questions about published research bleed into misconduct accusations, journals and institutions have their protocols, but many researchers grouse that the process can take years and its outcome is often unsatisfying.' The article points to a widespread desire for post-publication peer review that 'can clarify experiments and catch errors' and can 'challenge how studies are interpreted and suggest avenues for follow-up work.' Then it cites a problem: 'But many who participate in these discussions sit at a tense nexus: They long for more unfettered conversation about science, yet insist on doing so anonymously, fearful that their words will come back to haunt them.' And then the article cites another problem by pointing out that while 'anonymity can spur discussion, it does not always elevate it.' The article explores some pros and cons of anonymity and states that PubPeer's creators hope to see their site become 'an important side piece to the scientific literature.."