Article Text
Abstract
Data and ideas are the capital of research productivity. Is it ethical to preempt the publication of another researcher’s unpublished data or preliminary analysis, perhaps without citation? The long-established answer is ‘certainly not’—but recent ‘open data’ use suggests otherwise. A research competition was held using data from The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). This SPRINT Data Analysis Challenge created a novel environment for using open data as data became open early. This allowed third-party researchers the opportunity to assess some of the trial’s outcomes before trialists. Could this infringe on trialists’ right to analyse their data? Simultaneously, trialists had access to analyses from submissions to the competition that were not formally ‘published’ with a typical author credit or citation. Therefore, trialists had the opportunity to view the competition submissions and published on those ideas first without a typical way to cite the source of that idea. Could this infringe on researchers’ right to be credited for their ideas? This is not intended as a criticism of open data, the SPRINT Data Analysis Challenge, or similar systems/ventures, but is an effort to objectively note what may be remediable flaws in the worthwhile, growing and dynamic uses of open data. We offer preliminary analytics to shed more light and provide fodder for additional discussion.
- applied and professional ethics
- education for health care professionals
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Contributors NWC coordinated the study. All authors were involved in the planning of the study. BC and NWC performed data searches and data recording. NWC completed the quantitative analysis. All authors were involved in the data interpretation and the data reporting of the work described in the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Accurate estimation of cardiovascular risk in a non-diabetic adult: detecting and correcting the error in the reported Framingham Risk Score for the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial population
- Submissions from the SPRINT Data Analysis Challenge on clinical risk prediction: a cross-sectional evaluation
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review
- Intensive treatment of hypertension to a SBP <120 mm Hg in patients aged 75 and over reduces mortality and cardiovascular events
- Cohort profile: The MULTI sTUdy Diabetes rEsearch (MULTITUDE) consortium
- Multiple modes of data sharing can facilitate secondary use of sensitive health data for research
- New National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for hypertension: a review and comparison with the US and European guidelines
- Benefits and harms of lower blood pressure treatment targets: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials
- Intensive versus standard blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes: a restricted mean survival time analysis of a randomised controlled trial
- From blockchain technology to global health equity: can cryptocurrencies finance universal health coverage?