For instance, when research involves a large number of results from multiple studies to create a representative sample worldwide, the datasets used are not always accessible. Some of the scientists whose data were used and protected are listed as co-authors on the paper, while scientists whose data were openly available are only mentioned in the references or acknowledgments. This practice is widespread across all scientific fields and results in a loss of credit for researchers who took the risk of opening up their datasets. By rewarding researchers who keep their data closed, we send a clear message that selfish data withholding will advance their careers.

If we were to officially introduce evaluation criteria for open data on par with recognizing scientific articles, it would be a different story. One of the significant incentives to keep data closed would shift to an incentive for opening them. Therefore, we call on all institutions involved in shaping and implementing open science policies to consider incorporating open data into the evaluation and advancement system. There will always be cases where public data access may not be possible, depending on their type/form, but recognizing those who contribute their knowledge to research results is the foundation of science itself.

Hence, the prevailing circumstances where authors of open datasets are only acknowledged through citations need revision. As long as authorship in papers is significantly more valued than generating the data on which the research is based, researchers will not be sufficiently motivated to open access to their data. A change is urgently needed.

You can read the original article in its entirety at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00921-x