Reidpath D D, Allotey P A
School of Health Services, Deakin University.
Bioethics. 2001 Apr;15(2):125-34. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00220.
Scientific research entails systematic investigation. Publishing the findings of research in peer reviewed journals implies a high level of confidence by the authors in the veracity of their interpretation. Therefore it stands to reason that researchers should be prepared to share their raw data with other researchers, so that others may enjoy the same level of confidence in the findings.
In a prospective study, 29 corresponding authors of original research articles in a medical journal (the British Medical Journal) were contacted to ascertain their preparedness to share the data from their research. The email contact was in one of two forms, a general request and a specific request. The type of request a researcher received was randomly allocated.
Researchers receiving specific requests for data were less likely, and slower, to respond than researchers receiving general requests. Only one researcher released data. Most researchers were reluctant to release their data. Some required further information, clarification, or authorship.
The general reluctance of researchers to consider requests for their data is of concern. It raises questions about the level of confidence that should be placed on their interpretations of the data. It also highlights an unfortunate situation where researchers are more concerned with losing an advantage than advancing science.
科学研究需要系统的调查。在同行评审期刊上发表研究结果意味着作者对其解释的准确性有高度信心。因此，研究人员应该准备好与其他研究人员分享他们的原始数据，以便其他人对研究结果也能有同样程度的信心，这是合乎情理的。
在一项前瞻性研究中，联系了一家医学期刊（《英国医学杂志》）上原创研究文章的29位通讯作者，以确定他们是否愿意分享其研究数据。电子邮件联系采用两种形式之一，一种是一般请求，另一种是特定请求。研究人员收到的请求类型是随机分配的。
收到特定数据请求的研究人员比收到一般请求的研究人员回复的可能性更小，速度也更慢。只有一位研究人员公布了数据。大多数研究人员不愿公布他们的数据。一些人需要更多信息、澄清或署名。
研究人员普遍不愿考虑提供数据的请求令人担忧。这引发了关于对其数据解释应给予多大信心的问题。这也凸显了一种不幸的情况，即研究人员更关心失去优势而非推动科学发展。
