For various reasons the funding of research sometimes requires that the data is kept confidential and is not included in publications. Is this ever justified, such as for commercial reasons, protecting intellectual property? Or is this always counter productive does it harm science and does it actually harm the development of commercial prospects those trying to keep data confidential? Should all interpretations of data be always open to scientific scrutiny? Should full publication of all research data in full be a requirement, of all publications?
In short if any data is kept confidential for commercial reasons then would it not be right to simply say that it is not research, not science and only opinion and therefore not suitable for publication?
Well during my Ph.D, due to the topic, I encountered this problem even within my research group where some colleagues and friends were not able to share their materials data with me due to a confidentiality agreement. If you are developing a numerical method or a material model in some ways it is possible to present your results and ideas producing impact and increasing knowledge. However, this is not always applicable especially if your results are directly related to the data that you cannot disclose. I understand the reason, but I do not like, to be honest. Especially if this work needs to be published. How can a reviewer evaluate your results without the proper information? How can he evaluate the correctness of your work? I saw many papers published even in very good journals without decent information about material or loading conditions. In this scenario, the only aspect that I can evaluate is the logic, and in some case, the procedure applied but in that case which is the contribution to the common knowledge in the field? I think this is of course science and technology, but the issue is in the dissemination process.
Daniele
Of course, I agree. In collaborative research we might agree to some confidentiality between different organisations so that data can be shared. This is not satisfactory but it is sometimes necessary to facilitate the collaboration.
In my opinion it is fair to agree confidentiality of somebody else's data but only to give them time to publish it themselves. If they don't publish then it becomes a problem. If everybody publishes all their data themselves then this is not a problem.
It only becomes a problem when you are in possession of somebody else's data and they have not published it themselves. What do you? Do you risk upsetting a colleague who might then refuse to work with you or your organisation again? No you can't do that it would be immoral.
Perhaps we should have a time limit on confidentiality say 3 years maximum to give people time to publish their own work and if they don't then they only have themselves to blame if other people publish it first.
Dear Mutasem
Thank you for your answer, I am pleased to see that this question remains interesting to some people.
The point that I was trying to make was that if "Applied Research" is considered confidential for (commercial, security or safety) reasons then, in my opinion it should not be published in any academic Journal at all.
My opinion is that academic Journals should only publish research where the data is made fully public.
I am not trying to stop commercially or security sensitive research from being done. Far from it I am just saying that if any research uses "commercial" or "security" sensitive data then it should simply never be published at all.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications