Data Working Group

It means that researchers need to deal with the formatting and deposition of data, an annoying step when they would rather be focusing on their next project. Given the time lag, it's also difficult to associate the correct metadata with the material that's being a

According to the commentary, scientists view data deposition as a burden due to the extra work it involves. Research data is usually not in the correct format for submission to repositories when the project is completed, and so the scientist must take the time to convert it.

The authors here propose a new approach to data management, where each research institution should employ data managers to work with scientists and administer local, structured data storage. Local storage and support is the preference of most scientists, who would rather not hand off control of their data to remote strangers.

When I am putting a talk together it would never occur to me not to include a health dose of unpublished data. The only times in my career that I have talked about mostly published data have been when I first started as a postdoc and in the early days of being a PI, when I didn't have enough new data to even make a coherent story, but that accounts for maybe three professional talks out of man

s it a fear of being scooped or a penchant for keeping one's ideas close to the chest that promotes the Summary Talk?

I think it's field dependent. Personally, I can rarely get enough information from a talk to know whether to believe a result or not. This means that unpublished data usually ends up with me thinking "maybe, maybe not".