Lock up the data

[jester]

The first rule of research club is "Don't share the raw data with the general public."

The second rule of research club is "Don't share the raw data with the general public."

Or so it seems. I'm in the position right now of being locked out of some data by researchers and having data shared with me by others. And I honestly don't know which is worse. I'd love to be able to share some of the images and data I have but if I do I hurt people and lose access to other data. I'm starting to feel like a junkie, chasing the occasional high of knowing something that other researchers don't, but living in the low of not being able to share data with a broader circle of interested people.

Can anyone suggest some good reading on the subject of... customs and courtesies of the publish-or-perish culture? I'm kind of treading water and would like to minimize my chances of dragging someone down or gravely insulting them.

Thanks

[Aaron]

I am looking forward to reading the responses here but I lack substance to add.

[Jeff J]

Take a few deep breaths.
.
.
.
.

And talk about something else.

[hrolf]

I am a researcher. I am firmly of the opinion that data should be made accessible...after i get my publications out and peer review does its job and sanity checks what i've done. Much of what i do is NIH funded, and at least in theory data sets _must_ be made public (eventually).

Researchers tend to be possessive,sometimes to a fault, but total transparency isn't the right answer either: Giving any idiot access to my lab dropbox is not good for anyone.

I don't know what the norms are in research fields that aren't in the physical sciences, like, at all.

[Sean M]

"Ask first" is always a good policy.

Suggesting that someone send Dr. Z page 3 of their draft on flibbertigibets and ask if he has any comments is much safer than telling them that Dr. Z has a rare violet flibbertigibet.

Analog is safer than digital. So if you tell someone face-to-face about something, the most they can do is post "X told me that Y has ..." on Facebook. If you send them digital photos with metadata from your camera using your work email account, on the other hand ... Remember that every time you pass something along with instructions on how they can share it, you are adding one more link in a game of Telephone.

[Sean M]

Also, here are some nonviolent things you can do (and I think we agree that sharing secrets can be violent):

- Focus on making your work and the sources which you have rights to available. If others chose not to be so open, that is up to them.
- Follow the path of least resistance. If the Museum of Ferns is really easy to work with, and the Museum of Shrubs requires your birth certificate and at least one grandchild before they tell you whether something is still in their catalogue, you write your next paper on ferns and thank them for being so helpful.

[parlstickare]

It can vary immensely between and within fields: some researchers want to be the first to publish "their" data, even if that may be 20 years in the future (if ever), others gladly share with or without the provision of wanting to be named co-author or similar. Many academics are under the pressure of publishing New and Exciting Research all the time in order to keep their job or to move one step upwards on the career ladder, so I have some sympathy of those who want to hang on to their data. Always ask what your museum/academic contacts' policy are with sharing. Some places don't mind photos online (FB, blogs etc), but have rules on publishing for journals and books. Others allow you to have the photos on your harddrive and share them _in person_ with others, but you can't send the photos via email or put them online.

The only thing you can do is to respect those that hog their data (follow them on Academia.edu/stealth-stalk them so you know when they publish something so you can get that data then), and cooperate with those who share. If you have a future plan for your research, be upfront with that (publish for re-enactment organisation's internal newsletter, publish in academic journal, writing THE book on medieval playing cards, etc) when you ask for information. Likewise, if you plan a academic or mass market publication, have a think on whether you'd like to be sole author, or co-author. Those questions may arise, and it's good not having to consider them on the fly.

[MediumAevum]

As someone who has a decent amount of stuff just sitting in a room that's never been shared, like the list of 15th century English armorers I found last night that I made over 10 years ago, I wouldn't share someone elses work because it simply isn't worth it. For two reasons.

Reason number One.
90% of the people who you think will be interested in the information won't actually be interested no matter how much they say they are. After 20 years of doing this, this is actually half the reason why I don't share much, because people don't care. And out of the 10% who might actually genuinely be interested only 1% care about knowing today instead of some random day in the future when it becomes relevant to what they are doing.

Reason number Two.
You might piss the person off who might someday be the person who holds even more information you want. Or worse, you could get the person whose information it was pissed off at the person who gave it to you then they both get pissed off at you. It isn't worth it for Reason number One, almost no one cares except you and the two other people.

Work on your stuff and let them work on their stuff. If you get in a position where you need to publish something, either summarize or reference just one or two pieces.

[Gustovic]

As someone who has a decent amount of stuff just sitting in a room that's never been shared, like the list of 15th century English armorers I found last night that I made over 10 years ago, I wouldn't share someone elses work because it simply isn't worth it. For two reasons.

Reason number One.
90% of the people who you think will be interested in the information won't actually be interested no matter how much they say they are. After 20 years of doing this, this is actually half the reason why I don't share much, because people don't care. And out of the 10% who might actually genuinely be interested only 1% care about knowing today instead of some random day in the future when it becomes relevant to what they are doing.

I don't want to sound rude but.... WHAT??

In which universe holding back a list of English armourers is a bad thing? Maybe people are not interested because they don't even know that they can have access to such information.

Please reconsider your choice.

Or is it a matter of money? Do you need to get paid for you to share that list?

[MediumAevum]

As someone who has a decent amount of stuff just sitting in a room that's never been shared, like the list of 15th century English armorers I found last night that I made over 10 years ago, I wouldn't share someone elses work because it simply isn't worth it. For two reasons.

Reason number One.
90% of the people who you think will be interested in the information won't actually be interested no matter how much they say they are. After 20 years of doing this, this is actually half the reason why I don't share much, because people don't care. And out of the 10% who might actually genuinely be interested only 1% care about knowing today instead of some random day in the future when it becomes relevant to what they are doing.

I don't want to sound rude but.... WHAT??

In which universe holding back a list of English armourers is a bad thing? Maybe people are not interested because they don't even know that they can have access to such information.

Please reconsider your choice.

Or is it a matter of money? Do you need to get paid for you to share that list?

LOL. I didn't even remember that I did it and the only reason I know is because I happened to be moving some stuff on some shelves and opened an old notebook.
But you have just given me the opportunity to show you what I mean.
You mention a list of medieval armourers to a bunch of medieval armour enthusiasts and they all get excited for a moment in their head its going to change their world somehow.
The reality is it's a list of names and dates from English chancery close rolls that mention people who were armourers.
The list in and of itself does little other than indicate that there were more armourers in England in the early 15th century than in the later part of it. And even that could just be the nature of the source or standing of the craft in general or just a skew in the source.

So out of all the people who think it's amazing to have a list of 15th century English armourers maybe half will even look at the list, and the vast majority who look will see that it exists and never give another thought to it. A couple might look it over and remember it exists. And maybe one or two people spend real time with it. Then to add insult to injury in a couple years 3 people who all saw the list will be talking about armourers in 15th century England and they will all make a bunch of stupid statements that 2 min looking at the list could solve and no one will remember it exists.

So the idea of just sharing information openly for the public good doesn't get much traction with me anymore.
That is not to say that I never share information or help people with their research. I don't as often as I used to, mostly because I don't get exposed to many questions anymore because I don't regularly read most places where things are talked about.

[Gustovic]

So is it about popularity and interaction for you? (not sarcastic, but an actual question)

[MediumAevum]

So is it about popularity and interaction for you? (not sarcastic, but an actual question)

No, I tend to think of it much more in economic terms. Research and sharing research take time and energy and in return have an impact, results and investment.
When I first started researching and helping people with research about 20 years ago and for much of the life of this forum I did it to be helpful because people asked and where interested in things but looking back most of the return was in myself and investing in me knowing how to research and learning about things. While there were some people I helped who went on to create things built around my research help, the majority of the time it was people asking questions that they felt they were suppose to ask and didn't really care that much about the answer.
Today I do better investment in myself by reading a book than helping people with research questions, unless I find it interesting for some reason. So we are mostly left with will it make an impact, will the person produce a result with it, or am I investing in something or someone that might might pay back in some way.
So take example the other day I went through a facebook group on 15th century re-enactment that I've been part of at time but mostly just readon every month or two and see if there is something of note. After slugging through a bunch of crap that makes me wonder how many of them have read a book on the period. A person whose work I am familiar with asked an odd question. I read the responses and noticed the first source I would go to wasn't mentioned so I grabbed my copy and checked to see the information was there and found the online version and sent it to him in a private message. He should help him for why ever he is interested in this question and he's been known to publish blog posts or works with decent groups and what not and while its a very minor reason, I may have a question he can help with some day because he knows some areas very well.

Or lets take the list of English armourers I have. Its hand written on paper. so I'd have to scan or photograph it then upload it somewhere and because it isn't in text format it won't be searchable. For the 2 people who might look at every page of it. It isn't worth it because no one is likely to use it as a guide to do some future work that they couldn't be using the published indexes of the calendars that I used to make it. But lets say I had it as a text file and could just copy and paste it here. Its value still wouldn't be in any impact or results it would likely make but in investment in my reputation.

[MediumAevum]

Because everyone was so upset that I didn't share information. Or more accurately, I realized I had a feed scanner I have decided to right the wrong of my denying what is your right as people to have free unfettered access to everything.
http://informationist.co/english%20armourers.pdf

[Sean M]

It is interesting that most of them have solidly English names. Datini employed a Henequin of Bruges to make, repair, and tumble mail at Avignon, and at that time all the German cities were trying to recruit Italian journeymen and masters to help them improve their cotton industry.

Nicholas Dupras did not do very heavy research into texts, but he found number 617 on this page:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=35982

[m. 39] Fri. 19 Mar. 1378. Nicholas Brembre, mayor, William Cheyne, recorder, John Haddele, John Orgon, John Rote, John Clevele, Geoffrey Neuton, John Eston, John Vyne and Richard Preston, aldermen, and Nicholas Twyford, sheriff.

...

617. [m. 39d.] Thomas Yonge and Alice his wife complain by Richard Forster, their attorney, that the above-named Geoffrey Chadenesfeld, Walter and William with Stephen atte Fryth, 'armurer', on Mon. 5 Oct. 1377 built a forge (fabricam) of earth and timber, 40 ft. from the road, in the close of their tenement adjoining the pls.' messuage in the par. of St. Augustine by Paul's Gate, on the south side of Watlyngstrate, of which the chimney (tuellus) is lower by 12 ft. than it should be, and not built of plaster and stone as the custom of the City requires; and the blows of the sledge-hammers (grossis malleis) when the great pieces of iron called 'Osmond' are being wrought into 'brestplates', 'quysers', 'jambers' and other pieces of armour, shake the storie and earthen party-walls of the pls.' house so that they are in danger of collapsing, and disturb the rest of the pls. and their servants, day and night, and spoil the wine and ale in their cellar, and the stench of the smoke from the sea-coal used in the forge, penetrates their hall and chambers, so that whereas formerly they could let the premises for 10 marks a year, they are now worth only 40s. Andrew Pykeman and Nicholas Twyford, sheriffs, have testified elsewhere that the defs. have been summoned by John Little, 'taillour', and Andrew Cornewaille. They come in person but Stephen Fryth says that he has no interest in the tenement in dispute. Geoffrey, Walter and William answer as tenants. They deny the pls.' contention that chimneys ought to be built of stone and plaster, and high enough to cause no nuisance to the neighbouring tenements, and declare that good and honest men of any craft, viz. goldsmiths, smiths, pewterers, goldbeaters, grocers, pelters, marshals and armourers are at liberty to carry on their trade anywhere in the City, adapting their premises as is most convenient for their work, and that according to ancient custom any feoffor may give, bequeath or lease his property as well to craftsmen using great hammers as to others. They add that they have let the premises against which the nuisance is alleged to Stephen Fryth for a term of years which has not yet expired, and that he has set up his anvil in what was formerly the kitchen at a sufficient distance from the pls.' messuage, and strengthened the chimney with mortar and clay and raised it by 6 ft. or more. They maintain that the pls. cannot in any case complain of the chimney or of the noise of the hammers or the smoke, because their messuage was built as recently as 1349–50, and is much higher than the house it replaced, and has windows facing the forge, which its predecessors had not.

I would guess that pls. is "plaintiffs." Messuage is "residence." In England a mark is usually 2/3 of a pound, so they are saying that their property has lost two thirds of its value.

[MediumAevum]

You can certainly take the data further back by going to the calendar of close rolls and I think I just used the index. If I recall correctly, they are almost all suits about loans or sureties for things.

[MediumAevum]

Also non natives would have been less likely in these documents unless they were denziens.