Journal responses to data prior publication
Rebecca....@f1000.com
Hi,
I understand some of you have been talking with various journals about how they would view publication of a dataset that is then re-used for a future article publication in their journal? I am about to embark on just such a project (we previously asked journals and publishers the same type of question but relating to depositing conference posters into F1000 Posters (http://f1000posters.com – responses at http://f1000posters.com/journalresponses) before submitting the written-up article to their journals). If some of you already have the views of various journals though, it would be really useful to know so we don’t duplicate the effort in asking those journals again.
Many thanks for any help.
Best regards
Rebecca
Rebecca Lawrence, PhD
Director, New Product Development
FACULTY of 1000
http://F1000.com
+44 (0)20 7631 9154 (dir) | +44 (0)20 7323 0323 (gen) |rebecca....@f1000.com
| Skype:
r.lawrence1
Faculty of 1000, Middlesex House, 34–42 Cleveland St, London W1T 4LB, UK
Have you looked at our new F1000 Posters yet? Feel free to email us your feedback or deposit a poster.
Scott Edmunds
This is extremely useful to what we are doing, and we'd love to consult and compare notes with you and any other interested parties on this. We've been looking into releasing a lot of BGI's datasets pre-publication in this way, but obviously are having to be careful not to cause ourselves problems in the future regarding eventual publication. We've already contacted a few of the BGI's target journals (Nature, Science, PLoS and Cell), and I can pass on their feedback, but a more systematic polling of the publishers would be extremely useful.
The initial feedback we got from the editors we contacted was that the concept of DOI's for data shouldn't be an issue, although they all gave the same opt-out that consideration would be on a case-by-basis based upon how much additional work and analysis was done. The feedback from Nature in particular was quite informal (although Myles from Nature Genetics and Andrew from Nature Biotech have both been pushing micro-attribution and DOIs in their editorials). We assumed the views of Medical journals (NEJM...) could be more negative, but we are in the position now of being able to test this with a very interesting case that you may also be interested in following. See:
Li, D; Xi, F; Zhao, M; Chen, W; Cao, S; Xu, R; Wang, G; Wang, J; Zhang, Z; Li, Y; Cui, C; Chang, C; Cui, C; Luo, Y; Qin, J; Li, S; Li, J; Peng, Y; Pu, F; Sun, Y; Chen, Y; Zong, Y; Ma, X; Yang, X; Cen, Z; Song, Y; Zhao, X; Chen, F; Yin, X; Rohde, H; Liang, Y; Li, Y and the Escherichia coli O104:H4 TY-2482 isolate genome sequencing consortium (2011): Genomic data from Escherichia coli O104:H4 isolate TY-2482. BGI Shenzhen. doi:10.5524/100001
http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100001Being the first people to sequence the genome of the recent outbreak strain of E. coli, as it was such an important dataset it was essential to disseminate it freely as early as possible, but we thought it would also be a very interesting test case to issue a DOI to and release under a CC0 license. We are almost at the stage of submitting the paper, and so will shortly see the response. It may not be the most representative example of a typical dataset, but as it's such a potentially high profile paper it may at least help clarify and influence future editorial policies.
Best wishes,
Scott
--
Scott Edmunds PhD
Editor, Giga Science Journal
BGI-ShenZhen
Address: 8th Floor, Block 11,
Beishen Industrial Zone,
Yantian District, Shenzhen
Post Code:518083
Tel: (+86) 0755 82635412
Cell: (+86) 13418914644
scott....@genomics.org.cn
Rebecca....@f1000.com
Dear Scott,
Sorry for the slow response; I was on holiday last week. That sounds great, and as we have already done this same process for the posters, it would be a fairly straightforward process for us to ask the same group (and in fact others as we have quite a database of journal contacts now) the question about whether dataset publication would be an issue for them and then compile and publish the list for all to use and see. If you could send us the feedback you have already received and maybe who you spoke to so we can re-confirm it with them and get their confirmation that we can list their view on our site then that would be really great. It will indeed be really great to see the response you get to the E coli paper – I can’t believe a journal would really reject such a key paper just because you released the dataset (we have found journals that previously insisted they would reject papers if they were based on posters submitted to F1000 Posters have then subsequently published such papers).
Just following up on your point below, if you (or anyone else on this list) are looking for somewhere central to formally release and publish your datasets as data publications going forward (i.e. with a DOI and core minimum protocol information associated with them i.e. enough information so that someone else can re-use your data, but the datasets themselves would sit in an established repository or on Dryad) then we would be delighted to publish these in our new journal we will be launching soon, F1000 Research. You could of course then publish the more normal analysis/discussion papers associated with these datasets in the usual journals (based on their response to the prior publication issue of course).
Best wishes
Rebecca
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
Dear Rebecca,
You can find a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines on duplicate publication, including reference to data sharing and publication, and open science, for BioMed Central journals here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/duplicatepublication
May be helpful for the project.
Best regards,
Iain
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
Journal Publisher
BioMed Central
236 Gray's Inn Road
London, WC1X 8HB
T: +44 (0)20 3192 2175
F: +44 (0)20 3192 2011
M: +44 (0)782 594 0538
W: www.biomedcentral.com
Follow BioMed Central: |
|
|
|
|
Follow Open Data: 
Scott Edmunds
This is useful to us too, thanks. It's clear that raw data is OK in the BMC guidelines, but next time it's updated it could be nice to have a specific mention of data-DOI's to be extra explicit regarding this.
Hi Rebecca,
I'll send you our feedback directly, but it's very interesting to hear about F1000 Research, as we've been thinking about doing something along similar lines with our GigaScience database (although more likely focussed on the types of data that would integrate well with the BGI-cloud and the workflow tools we are developing). BGI are quite generous with the server space they can give us (they've got Pb's knocking around), so if you or anyone would like to talk about datahosting or the infrastructure we are building (ideas, requests, etc.) please let me know. I'll be in the UK for a few weeks from the end of next month.
Best wishes,
Scott
