Some years ago, when I served on the
Academic Integrity Committee investigating allegations of fraud against Dirk
Smeesters, it fell upon me to examine Word documents of some of his manuscripts
(the few that were not “lost”). The “track changes” feature afforded me a
glimpse of earlier versions of the manuscripts as well as of comments made by
Smeesters and his co-authors. One thing that became immediately obvious was
that while all authors had contributed to the introduction and discussion
sections, Smeesters alone had pasted in the results sections. Sometimes, the
results elicited comments from his co-authors: “Oh, I didn’t know we also
collected these measures” to which Smeesters replied something like “Yeah,
that’s what I routinely do.” Another comment I vividly remember is: “Wow,
these results look even better than we expected. We’re smarter than we
thought!” More than a little ironic in retrospect.
On the one hand I found these discoveries
reassuring. I had spent many hours talking in person or via Skype with some of
Smeesters’ co-authors. Their anguish was palpable and had given even me a few
sleepless nights. The Word documents seemed to exonerate them. We had asked
Smeesters to indicate for each study who had had access to the data, which he had dutifully done. For each study deemed problematic, he indicated he had sole
access to the data and the Word documents confirmed this. I was relieved on
behalf of the co-authors.
On the other hand, I found the co-authors’
lack of access to the data disturbing. You could fault them for apparently
being uninterested in seeing the data and Smeesters for not sharing them. But how
common it is to share data among co-authors anyway, I wondered? Smeesters
obviously had his reasons for not sharing the data but there are also far more
innocent reasons why co-authors may not want to share the data. For example, researchers
may find it unpleasant to have somebody looking over their shoulder, as it
might imply a perceived a lack of competence on their part. “I’m a Ph.D. now, I
can analyze my own data, thank you very much.” Not trying to cause offense may
make co-authors reluctant to ask for the data. Sometimes, the researcher
analyzing the data may have used idiosyncratic steps in the process that are
not easy to follow by others. Sharing the data would be onerous for such a
person because this would require making every step that is second nature to
them explicit for the benefit someone else. The perceived burdensomeness of the
task could be another barrier against sharing data.
If there are barriers against sharing data
among co-authors, then one might expect that the barriers against sharing data
with third parties, such as reviewers, and other interested researchers are
substantially higher. Indeed, this turns out to be the case in psychology, even after the
turmoil that the field has recently gone through.
It seems that we like to play it close to
the vest when our data are concerned. But science is not a poker game. When we
take a few steps back from our own concerns, this becomes clear. We need to
back up our claims with data and not with a poker face. We also have a
responsibility towards our fellow researchers. Sure, they may be our
competitors in some respects but together we’re in the business of knowledge
acquisition. This process is greatly facilitated when there is open access to
data. And finally, we have a responsibility to the society at large, which
funds our research.
(1) The data should be
made publicly available.
We just discussed this.
(2) The stimuli should be
made publicly available.
Just as we all benefit from access to data,
we also benefit from access to stimulus materials. I cannot speak for other
areas in psychology but in cognitive psychology, the sharing of stimuli has
been common for decades. Back in the day it was not possible to have a printed
journal article with a 10-page appendix with stimulus materials. Authors would
provide a few sample stimuli and there would be a note that the complete
materials were available from the corresponding author upon request. In my
experience, the stimuli were always promptly sent when requested. Since the
advent of the internet, there are no physical or financial limits to posting
stimuli. At least for cognitive psychologists, therefore, this second PRO requirement
should not be different from what is already common practice in the area.
(3) If there are reasons why data and/or stimuli cannot be shared, these
should be specified.
It is important to note here that under the PRO Initiative,
reviewers provide no evaluation of these reasons. In other words, under the PRO
Initiative, reviewers are by no means arbiters of what counts as a valid reason
and what not. The only requirement is that the reasons become part of the
scientific record.
My father was a chain smoker for most of his life until he declared
at one point: “smoking is a filthy
habit!” (“You can say that again!” I remember replying.) After this epiphany,
my father never touched a cigarette again. I hope that the PRO Initiative will
contribute to the field reaching a similar epiphany about lack of openness.
If you’ve already had this epiphany, you
may wish to sign the Initiative here.
For other views related to the Initiative,
see blog posts by Richard
Morey and Candice
Morey.
Reacties
Een reactie posten