Managing UK research data for future use

With regards the above topic may I squeeze out some more
pus from the carbuncle of medical research as was posted in
my blog recently (www.sarcoidosis.com.au) and also on the
BMJ site doc2doc where my comments did not trigger even 1
on the Richter Scale (not surprisingly).

As one who has done “research” for several decades, I have
long thought that articles in journals are often a sad
reflector of the
truth. Papers conform to a convention steeped in time
although medical journals have only been commonplace for
about one
hundred years.

We all know that often the co-authors do very little and
get on the paper by dint of politics, power, diplomacy or
just keeping the peace. How many professors become co-
authors when they did stuff all. They join the hay ride so
to swell their curriculum vitae or to lure precious grants,
the life-blood of the “department”. Yes I have worked in
such and have their recipe card in my head.

I also believe that most research encounters significant
logistic or methodological problems which are iced over on
the final cake presented with “hundreds and thousands”
(sugary coloured sprinkles) with a name/title on top for
the unwitting and naive consumers like you and me.

What I propose is a section called “Authors’ contribution”
and “Methological and logistic problems”. I want
researchers to bare all; the full Monty, no bull, the verum
corpus.

This does not have to be long; no magna carta. At present
one guesses what was done and by whom by looking at their
names and asterixes showing their rank and institution. It
may be a lie; a deceit.

On the submission of a paper one would be asked to sign a
statutory declaration along with conflict of interest which
incidentally is always in micrographic fonts invisible for
the presbyopic reader.

For example, most of the work may have been done by a
registrar or even a data manager who is either not listed
or is the third author (haven’t we all seen this?). The
project may have been bogged down by problems that others
wanting to corroborate the work need to know. Some bits may
be "fudged", nay data "massaged". That is why Scot’s and
Amundsen’s journals are still read by those wanting to go
for a stroll across Antarctica. How many times have we
heard some luminary expounding the virtue of some drug in a
drug trial usually called something like the SMUG 2 trial,
where the said drug "nearly reached significance".

Editors would regard this with dismay as it would mean that
articles may end up being half a page longer and we all
know that words cost cash. However, we need to rise above
this and demand a warts and all article where the authors
can “fess up” as the former American president and literary
genius used to say. As an aside, his lasting legacy I
believe was the fiscal mutilation of both his and other
nations, not to mention his mother tongue.

These suggestions may sound revolutionary to those still
eating brioche viz. cake but the empty tumbrels are waiting
in the courtyard.

Competing interests:
None declared