Thank you Hans!
- and when you see the consequences of some registration - it usually is too late!
regards
Herbert Schentz
Ökosystemforschung & Monitoring
Ecosystem Research & Monitoring
T: +43-(0)1-313 04/5308
F: +43-(0)1-313 04/3555
[log in to unmask]
Umweltbundesamt GmbH
Spittelauer Lände 5
1090 Wien
Österreich/Austria
http://www.umweltbundesamt.at
Firmenbuchnummer (Identification-No): FN 187010s
Firmenbuchgericht: Handelsgericht Wien
Die Informationen in dieser Nachricht sind vertraulich und ausschließlich für die/den AdressatIn bestimmt. Sollten
Sie diese Nachricht irrtümlich erhalten haben, benachrichtigen Sie bitte umgehend die/den SenderIn und löschen
Sie das Original. Jede andere Verwendung dieses E-Mails ist untersagt.
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private
information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other
use of the email by you is prohibited.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Research data publication: announcements and discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Hans Pfeiffenberger
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013 10:54
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: Registrastion for access to data
Dear Astrid and all,
first lat me ask you this: Why should rules and practises of disclosing "readership" of data be so different from articles?
Am 21.05.13 09:37, schrieb Astrid Woollard:
> In Biology, it can often be an advantage to know who produced the data and how the raw data looks like, as it is an indicator of reliability of the data.
I agree with that wholeheartedly - a researcher must stand behind his/her published findings "with their names".
But this has nothing to do with the question whether a "reader" of those data should be known to the producer of data or anyone else.
Only if the data are actually *used* in generating knew knowledge, the source must be disclosed (aka good scientific practise).
Even the argument of enabling new collaborations does not hold: If the data creator is known, the reader/user can initiate collaboration at his/her own discretion - as it should be. Else, anybody might upload some data, make it look interesting ("honey pot") and follow up with unsolicited offers of any kind after download.
Another aspect should guide us as well: In the age of "big data" we should ask ourselves, what happens if the whole browsing/download history of a researcher became known to interested parties. Even if it is not an evil government but just your competitor with the better data analysis department. There was a funny incident some years ago, when Amazon disclosed *who* had bought which book. Suddenly, one could see which topics Microsoft employees were interested in - in that case it was LDAP (that was before Active Directory).
In summary: If a researcher publishes, contributions must be named (and not pseudonymous). If a researcher reads/uses it should be anonymous, and where registration/authorization is unavoidable (e.g.
for any kind of protection issues) this should be done by trustworthy third parties and not disclosed except to an ombuds person.
best,
Hans
|