5

There are a number of questions about accessing the data corresponding to publications. In the recent years, many journals have improved their data availability policies and this is less of an issue. On the other hand, I do not find much about the extent of exploiting these data that is thought acceptable.

Firstly, I believe most scientific communities accept that other's data are replotted along with similar data acquired by the authors (showing repeatability) or along with similar data from yet other groups (meta-analysis type of figure). Still, I have the impression that in many communities people rather plot only their own data and comment that this is the same behavior as reported by so & so. So is there a policy? Should one ask for author's permission? Should one specify exactly what data of theirs will be shown along with what other data?

Then, there's the question of data re-analysis. For instance, say authors have published the time evolution of several variables of interest, and Methods make clear that these were acquired simultaneously on the same sample. Is it OK e.g. to publish separately from them a figure which plots one variable from their dataset against another? I guess the answer to this question can be yes or no, depending on the way this is done. I expect that in most cases, having this plot with only their data as my Fig 1, possibly overlaid with a model prediction, and being the main result of my paper, will be judged problematic. Is it? If yes, what is the red line between acceptable re-analysis (e.g. I've already seen data re-plotted in log scale, but the figures with this data were in supplementary materials only). And of course, same questions as above apply.

  • 2
    You can do anything with previously published data without consent from the authors. Problem is finding something interesting and new enough that warrants such a publication. – Maarten Buis Aug 4 '17 at 18:32
  • 2
    @MaartenBuis: That's a very strong statement to make, and in this generality, I would guess it's most probably wrong. Understanding the applicable laws and contracts would be complicated enough if one knew the jurisdiction, but it seems like we don't, so a sweeping statement like that is unlikely to stand. – RQM Sep 3 '17 at 16:32
1

If you use the figure directly, you'd best get the permissions in line. If you modify the figure, you most likely don't need to, but properly attribute (i.e., "Modified from...."

My own preference for stuff like this is to use a tool like datathief to grab the data from the figure, and remake my own figure, formatted optimally to make my point. Attribute the original.

  • Thanks for your answer. Of course I meant to attribute any re-used data. I understand that your feeling is that data doesn't always need to be made available and can sometimes be reverse-engineered from figures (if authors report a distribution, you may only get the mean and some percentiles, though). But then, to what extent would you re-analyse their data, that is, plot it with different axes than what they have? – Joce Aug 4 '17 at 15:18
  • There are zero restrictions. I would do whatever I felt I could scientifically defend. – Scott Seidman Aug 4 '17 at 15:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.