Candice C. Morey and Richard D. Morey<\/p>\n
Science is a social activity. It does not happen in a single-lab vacuum; rather, science happens across global networks of groups investigating similar topics. Our research is influenced by previous research and also by the work that I know other researchers in my network are currently pursuing. Our research benefits greatly from the generosity of my colleagues, most of whom are eager to explain their work, share published data upon request, and share experimental software and materials. We, likewise, participate in the same activities. Sharing software, analysis code, and data saves a tremendous amount of time: it prevents labs from continuously reinventing the same tasks and analyses, or from repeating ideas that do not work as envisioned. Sharing data also ensures that others can check and extend my analysis, instead of having to take us\u00a0at our word about what the data \u201csay\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Note that we didn’t use the word \u201creciprocate\u201d or anything like it in describing these relationships. That’s because these networks are <\/span>not <\/span><\/i>formed because of any <\/span>quid pro quo<\/span><\/i> established between our team and people who have cooperated with us previously. They arise because of the responsibility we all take on when publishing about our data. In reply to a query about whether the original authors of a data set should be given co-authorship on a new paper using their data:<\/span><\/p>\n @PsychScientists<\/a> I don't think so. The paper + data are the science. W\/o data the paper is just a brochure; w\/o paper, data is purposeless.<\/p>\n — Chris Chambers (@chrisdc77) May 1, 2016<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n