Countdown to the “Data Oscars”

“At JISC’s September 2011 Research Integrity Conference, at which BioMed Central presented, there was much support for the seemingly novel concept of setting up a ‘Data Oscars’. It was one of a number of ideas to better incentivize data sharing (the problem of, ‘why should scientists share data if they don’t get any credit for it?’). Many people are motivated by prizes, scientists included. And, although an award for sharing data is far from a universal solution to data sharing’s credit problem, it’s a step in the right direction. But giving prizes for ‘data sharing done well’ is not a new idea. BioMed Central’s annual Open Data Award is now in its third year. Furthermore, there are still a few days left to submit your nomination before the judging panel meet to compile the shortlist. I’m pleased to be on the judging panel for a third successive year with authors of the Panton Principles Cameron Neylon, Peter Murray-Rust, Rufus Pollock and John Wilbanks. In 2012 we are joined by Earl Beutler, CEO of LabArchives, a company which provides online laboratory notebook software for sharing and publishing data, and are this year sponsoring the award. The criteria for the Open Data Award are: ‘Data sharing, its preservation and re-use, is an increasingly important part of scientific research and the publication process but there are many challenges associated with openly sharing scientific data, particularly when sharing goes against cultural or community norms. We recognize researchers who have published in BioMed Central journals and have demonstrated leadership in the sharing, standardization, publication, or re-use of biomedical research data.’ Articles published in Chemistry Central and BioMed Central journals are eligible for the award. Many articles making the shortlist in previous years have tended to be original research which have included as additional files, or deposited in a repository or database, all the data supporting their findings. Particularly relevant are types of experimental data or scientific fields where data sharing and publishing is less common, such as clinical medicine. But that should not exclude significant advances made in fields where data sharing is more established, such as genomics. Published data which are of good quality – well labeled, understandable, conforming to agreed standards of reporting, and in accessible file formats – have also been highly regarded. High-profile open data and data sharing policy papers, and descriptions of data sharing tools, have received honourable mentions too..."