Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In his editorial Andrew Vickers points at the importance of making
raw research data more widely available to the public and the scientific
community [1]. A subject that is surprisingly topical [2] as well as an
idea that dates back to already long ago [3]. We agree with Vickers (and
Boulton and colleagues) that the development in the direction of open data
sharing is indeed inevitable. Also, we agree that many researchers are
still ignorant of or even denying the development. However, we do not
believe that 'get used to it' [1] is the best advice to the scientific
community. Also, we should not wait for the funders to force researchers
in the direction of data sharing, because this will not help to move
things in the right direction. When obligation instead of motivation is
the driver, it is not unlikely that researchers will simply "dump" their
data in a data repository to result in largely inaccessibly piles of data
in which it is as impossible to find data as it is to find a needle in a
haystack. If we want to maximise the value of data sharing, several issues
- of which Boulton provides a nice overview - indeed need to be solved
[2;4] instead of trivialized [1]. Dutch experiences with the National Care
for the Elderly Programme (NPO) [5], the String of Pearls Initiative (PSI)
[6] and the Mondriaan Project [7] show this is possible.
The aim of data
sharing could benefit from the establishment of an international research-network to support the exchange of best practices and experiences and to
produce international consensus guidelines on the subject. Vickers'
editorial has helped to create a momentum for this, let's use it.
(1) Vickers AJ. Making raw data more widely available. BMJ 2011;
342:d2323.
(2) Boulton G, Rawlins M, Vallance P, Walport M. Science as a public
enterprise: the case for open data. Lancet 2011; 377(9778):1633-1635.
(3) Perneger TV. Sharing raw data: another of Francis Galton's
ideas. BMJ 2011; 342:d3035.
(4) Hrynaszkiewicz I, Norton ML, Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Preparing
raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors,
and peer reviewers. Trials 2010; 11:9.
(7) Klungel OH, Rietveld MC, de Groot MCH, Stolk RP, Postma MJ,
Leufkens HGM et al. The Mondriaan Project: The Dutch healthcare landscape
as a population laboratory. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19:S177-S178.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
25 May 2011
Rene J. Melis
senior researcher / scientific leader NPO Minimum Data Set project
Hans Vehof, Lia Baars, Marc Rietveld, Gerhard Zielhuis, and Marcel Olde Rikkert
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Dept of Geriatric Medicine
Making raw data available: let's use the momentum
In his editorial Andrew Vickers points at the importance of making
raw research data more widely available to the public and the scientific
community [1]. A subject that is surprisingly topical [2] as well as an
idea that dates back to already long ago [3]. We agree with Vickers (and
Boulton and colleagues) that the development in the direction of open data
sharing is indeed inevitable. Also, we agree that many researchers are
still ignorant of or even denying the development. However, we do not
believe that 'get used to it' [1] is the best advice to the scientific
community. Also, we should not wait for the funders to force researchers
in the direction of data sharing, because this will not help to move
things in the right direction. When obligation instead of motivation is
the driver, it is not unlikely that researchers will simply "dump" their
data in a data repository to result in largely inaccessibly piles of data
in which it is as impossible to find data as it is to find a needle in a
haystack. If we want to maximise the value of data sharing, several issues
- of which Boulton provides a nice overview - indeed need to be solved
[2;4] instead of trivialized [1]. Dutch experiences with the National Care
for the Elderly Programme (NPO) [5], the String of Pearls Initiative (PSI)
[6] and the Mondriaan Project [7] show this is possible.
The aim of data
sharing could benefit from the establishment of an international research-network to support the exchange of best practices and experiences and to
produce international consensus guidelines on the subject. Vickers'
editorial has helped to create a momentum for this, let's use it.
(1) Vickers AJ. Making raw data more widely available. BMJ 2011;
342:d2323.
(2) Boulton G, Rawlins M, Vallance P, Walport M. Science as a public
enterprise: the case for open data. Lancet 2011; 377(9778):1633-1635.
(3) Perneger TV. Sharing raw data: another of Francis Galton's
ideas. BMJ 2011; 342:d3035.
(4) Hrynaszkiewicz I, Norton ML, Vickers AJ, Altman DG. Preparing
raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors,
and peer reviewers. Trials 2010; 11:9.
(5) Website Dutch National Care for the Elderly Programme. 2011.
Available from: http://www.nationaalprogrammaouderenzorg.nl/english/the-
national-care-for-the-elderly-programme/ (Accessed on May 25th 2011).
(6) Website String of Pearls Initiative. 2011. Available from:
http://www.string-of-pearls.org/ (Accessed on May 25th, 2011).
(7) Klungel OH, Rietveld MC, de Groot MCH, Stolk RP, Postma MJ,
Leufkens HGM et al. The Mondriaan Project: The Dutch healthcare landscape
as a population laboratory. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19:S177-S178.
Competing interests: No competing interests