 |
 |
Hi Jon: Have you heard from anyone who served as a volunteer on the screening project? Thanks. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Ben, > > Since my initial message a couple of volunteers have responded on the list > expressing disquiet/surprise at Cochrane's position. I have also been > contacted, off list, by a number more. All seem upset by Cochrane's > maneuvering on this. None explicitly knew Cochrane would make this a > private resource. > > You raise an interesting point around the long-term harm of this. I'm > sceptical it'll harm crowdsourcing *per se*. However, it might limit > Cochrane's ability to repeat this trick in the future. > > As I initially stated, if Cochrane reverse their decision and put make > volunteers efforts publicly and freely available (as the volunteers > intended) I'll be a massive fan of their efforts. > > Cheers > > jon > > On 9 May 2016 at 14:50, Ben Goldacre <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Cochrane needs to be sustainable, that's in everyone's interests. >> >> The questions are: >> >> 1. Cochrane is trying to monetise the underlying data collected by >> individual researchers and now members of the public (as well as the >> published reviews): are the benefits of this greater than the harms? >> >> 2. Were members of the public participating in the crowdsourcing project >> told that their time and effort would create a paywalled commercial dataset >> that is not shared? >> >> The latter is a consent issue, and also raises broader concerns, because >> generally that kind of crowdsourcing information effort is to produce an >> open data resource for public good, eg Wikipedia and more. >> >> What were the participants told? I can't see anything on the site telling >> them that their crowdsourcing work would produce a private resource: I may >> have missed it, but if so then it is possible/likely they may have missed >> it too. >> >> What were they told? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Dr Ben Goldacre BA MA MSc MBBS MRCPsych* >> >> Senior Clinical Research Fellow >> >> [log in to unmask] >> >> Centre for Evidence Based Medicine >> >> Department of Primary Care Health Sciences >> >> University of Oxford >> >> Radcliffe Observatory Quarter >> >> Woodstock Road >> >> Oxford OX2 6GG >> >> >> *Current output:* >> www.ebmDataLab.net >> <[log in to unmask]> >> www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/ben-goldacre >> >> >> * For anything other than CEBM / PHC work please use:* >> [log in to unmask] >> >> * Public engagement and blog:* >> www.badscience.net >> www.twitter.com/bengoldacre >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Susan Fowler < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> No. I said nothing is free. >>> >>> -- >>> Susan Fowler, MLIS >>> Medical Librarian >>> Coordinator, Systematic Review Services >>> >>> Evidence at Becker: >>> http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm >>> >>> Systematic Reviews Guide: >>> http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/SystematicReviews >>> >>> Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis >>> 314-362-8092 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, vasiliy vlassov <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Susan, >>>> did I understand you correctly that you are saying: >>>> because every body has its means of living (someone paying them an >>>> income), just because of this, the fruits of his/her (crowd of them) work >>>> may be used by third party for the profit? >>>> Vasya >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2016-05-05 16:45, Susan Fowler wrote: >>>> >>>>> Cochrane is not really free to anyone. In countries where people have >>>>> "free" access including Australia, they have it because their >>>>> government >>>>> pays for it with taxes paid by citizens. Just like how the PubMed >>>>> interface to the Medline database isn't really "free" since it is paid >>>>> for with United States citizen tax dollars.Crowd sourcing isn't free >>>>> either. That crowd is already an elite set of people since they have >>>>> access to the internet and the hardware necessary to interact. Those >>>>> people are employed by someone paying them an income or are supported >>>>> by their government that supports their crowd sourcing contributions. >>>>> >>>>> Researchers are welcome to publish their content in reputable open >>>>> source journals like PLOS and their institutions are happy to make >>>>> their >>>>> content digitally available in repositories. In the US, journals >>>>> publishing reports funded with government money are required to make >>>>> access to those reports free. We have plenty of avenues for sharing our >>>>> content. We do not have to give up access and, these days, authors have >>>>> options to negotiate author agreements with subscription journals to >>>>> maintain access rights. If you need help figuring all of that out >>>>> contact a librarian. >>>>> >>>>> If you want access to information for "free", it doesn't stop with >>>>> university libraries, you can access content at your public libraries >>>>> as >>>>> well. You can even do it online with a "free" public library account. >>>>> Even if your public library doesn't subscribe to a particular journal >>>>> they can get it for you, usually at not cost to you outside of the >>>>> taxes >>>>> you have already paid to use the library in the first place. >>>>> >>>>> So when people complain about not having free access what are they >>>>> really complaining about? Because from my point of view, it seems like >>>>> there a lot of ways to access information for "free". If researchers >>>>> get >>>>> paid to conduct research and write articles reporting the results, who >>>>> do we think pays the publishers to publish that content or the >>>>> libraries >>>>> and librarians who work very hard to make access as easy as possible? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think Cochrane is aiming to derive financial gains either but >>>>> Cochrane doesn't just happen. Their are servers, content management, >>>>> interface design etc... that has to happen and that is not free. >>>>> Nothing >>>>> is really free. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Susan Fowler, MLIS >>>>> Medical Librarian >>>>> Coordinator, Systematic Review Services >>>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Vasiliy V. Vlassov, MD >>>> President, Society for Evidence Based Medicine (osdm.org) >>>> e-mail: vlassov[a t]cochrane.ru >>>> snail mail: P.O.Box 13 Moscow 109451 Russia >>>> Phone Russia +7(965)2511021 >>>> >>>> Подпишись на новости на osdm.org >>>> >>>> -- >>>> THANK YOU for deleting my e-mail address , any other addresses, and >>>> any personal information, from this e-mail, if you plan to forward it. >>>> Also, thank you for using “Bcc” instead of “To” and “Cc“ when initiating >>>> both individual and group e-mails. These extra actions on your part help to >>>> prevent spammers and hackers from obtaining addresses and thus help >>>> prevent the proliferation of spam. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Jon Brassey > Director, Trip Database <http://www.tripdatabase.com> > Honorary Fellow at CEBM <http://www.cebm.net>, University of Oxford > Creator, Rapid-Reviews.info > > -- Susan Fowler, MLIS Medical Librarian Coordinator, Systematic Review Services Evidence at Becker: http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm Systematic Reviews Guide: http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/SystematicReviews Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis 314-362-8092 [log in to unmask]