Ancestors

Toot

Written by Noam Ross on 2025-01-22 at 14:33

Just out from CDC: A really great review of ethical dimensions of data science in public health. It gives a practical set of questions for researchers and data scientists to consider in themes of privacy, responsible stewardship, justice as fairness, and inclusivity and engagement.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11748135/

[#]DataScience #PublicHealth #Epidemiology

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from noamross@ecoevo.social

Descendants

Written by Noam Ross on 2025-01-22 at 14:38

I guess this got out just under the wire.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from noamross@ecoevo.social

Written by Olivier Leroy on 2025-01-22 at 14:41

@noamross well I just bookmarked it! (and yes I review my bookmark)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from defuneste@fosstodon.org

Written by Kate Nyhan on 2025-01-22 at 14:57

@noamross

On the one hand, looks like a great paper.

On the other hand, eight of the authors work for the CDC. How on earth did this get published with a copyright statement saying that the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health owns the copyright, and a permissions link implying that Sage gets to adjudicate requests to reuse it? If this is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the US gov't as part of that peron's official duties, it should be in the public domain.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kdnyhan@social.esmarconf.org

Written by Noam Ross on 2025-01-22 at 15:13

@kdnyhan I think this a journal-level issue? The journal itself is a government-associated publication: https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/publichealthreports/index.html

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from noamross@ecoevo.social

Written by Kate Nyhan on 2025-01-22 at 15:50

@noamross It is a journal-level issue, and I think the whole of PHR should be open access without APCs and with a clear license allowing reuse. But I especially think that PHR articles *by fed gov't workers as part of their official duties should be in the public domain.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kdnyhan@social.esmarconf.org

Written by Kate Nyhan on 2025-01-22 at 15:57

@noamross I am also wondering -- typically, PHR articles are not available in PMC until a year after their publication date, unless their authors (or their authors' funders) have paid an Article Processing Charge for immediate OA, current $4400. But Sage Choice articles are supposed to be given a CC BY-NA or CC BY license, which this paper doesn't have....

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kdnyhan@social.esmarconf.org

Written by Kate Nyhan on 2025-01-22 at 15:59

@noamross

And I see that all thirty PHR articles that have been published so far this year are free in PMC already, which is unusual -- in the past I've seen <25% of PHR articles be immediate open access.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kdnyhan@social.esmarconf.org

Written by Kate Nyhan on 2025-01-22 at 16:01

@noamross

I wonder if there was a policy change? As it happens I wrote to my senator about this last week... surely that couldn't have led to any changes so fast. Or maybe the new administration has changed things?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kdnyhan@social.esmarconf.org

Written by Noam Ross on 2025-01-22 at 16:09

@kdnyhan I wonder if there was a rush to get things out as the old admin came to a close, which could have included "let's use the budget to publish a bunch of OA", and/or some mistakes in processing.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from noamross@ecoevo.social