On March 21, a day after GISAID (an open-access influenza genome database launched in 2008) suspended access to all authors of a report posted on Zenodo, the public database reversed its stand and lifted the non permanent access restrictions to all the authors.
In an electronic mail to The Hindu, a spokesperson of GISAID Media mentioned that it determined to briefly carry access restriction after the authors reached out to GISAID and “acknowledged receipt of GISAID’s earlier communications” and expressed their “eagerness to resolve the matter expeditiously”.
As per the spokesperson, GISAID reversed its stand and lifted the non permanent access restrictions as a “show of goodwill” and did so after it obtained a reply from the authors quickly after the GISAID launched a press release on March 21. However, GISAID has communicated to the authors of its determination to review all proof and has invited the authors to share further data.
“The review is not complete,” the spokesperson mentioned in the mail. “Lifting temporary access restrictions is not, in itself, determinative or otherwise indicative of the conclusion of any data use investigation.”
The spokesperson additional added that GISAID did not remark whether or not the reversal of its stand vindicated the authors that the workforce was in compliance with the guidelines following the publication as the review was nonetheless ongoing.
The spokesperson defined the causes for briefly blocking access to the authors: posting the preprint disclosing the findings from the knowledge to the basic public (as opposed to solely related public well being authorities or different registered GISAID customers) and the reality that the majority of the authors of the report “received GISAID’s request for feedback and assistance but chose not to respond, left GISAID with no other choice but to temporarily suspend these authors’ access credentials”.
“The authors created a fait accompli scenario,” the GISAID Media mentioned.
Blindsided
To a query whether or not the authors of the Zenodo report have been explicitly forewarned that their access could be suspended in case of a violation, the spokesperson mentioned that the authors have been knowledgeable that “publishing a work using the data at issue would violate GISAID’s database access agreement. Despite this knowledge, the authors nevertheless published their work, which blindsided GISAID.”
The spokesperson additional added: “In most instances, where complaints are investigated and users are helpful to mitigate the given situation, such measures are not needed. When it becomes evident that any user ignores requests for clarity and appears reluctant to help ensure the data generators’ rights will be upheld, such measures will only be used as a last resort.”
“The authors of the publication ignored GISAID’s request for feedback over an eight-day period following what remains a data contributors’ legitimate complaint. Instead, the authors created a fait accompli scenario and continued to ignore GISAID’s initial request,” the spokesperson mentioned.
On March 13, GISAID had contacted Edward Holmes and Michael Worobey (two of the co-authors of the report) and different GISAID customers it believed to be in possession of the knowledge to request their suggestions and help on this inquiry.
“Unfortunately, none of the replies GISAID received came from the authors listed on what would later become a ‘publication’ on Zenodo, a general-purpose open repository,” GISAID Media mentioned in the electronic mail to The Hindu. “It is noteworthy that the authors’ report extensively acknowledged that they received the request for information from GISAID, yet ignored GISAID’s request.”
In the report in Zenodo, the authors explicitly acknowledged that they have been in receipt of emails from GISAID. “On March 13, those of us who had either downloaded the data, or associated metadata, or contacted the corresponding author of the preprint, received emails from the GISAID Secretariat admonishing us to comply with the GISAID terms of use, or in some cases falsely accusing us of having breached the GISAID terms of use,” they write.
Collaboration
On the concern about ambiguity round what constitutes religion try to collaborate, GISAID Media mentioned that collaborations happen on GISAID daily, and that GISAID fosters important interactions for the profit of international public well being, corresponding to in the discovery of the Omicron variant by South Africa and Botswana in November 2021.
“Making a meaningful effort to collaborate begins with respecting the data generators and appreciating their first-hand knowledge of the data they provide. It also means not engaging in “scooping” whereby authors rush to publish their work that depends on another person’s knowledge regardless of having information that the similar knowledge generator has a manuscript below review at a peer-reviewed scientific journal,” the spokesperson mentioned.
The spokesperson added that knowledge contributors search the help of GISAID time-to-time after they consider their knowledge have been utilized in a non-compliant method with the phrases of use all registered customers have agreed to adhere to. “GISAID must take all complaints seriously, and its procedures call for diligent inquiry, which includes following up with all parties potentially involved,” GISAID Media mentioned.
Accordingly, GISAID opened an inquiry when it obtained a criticism from Chinese CDC researchers about their interplay with two of the co-authors of the report, who “communicated their intent to make certain use of data generated by the China CDC that was non-compliant”.
“The vast majority of GISAID’s tens of thousands of users demonstrate sound scientific etiquette which has contributed to the initiative’s overwhelming success over the course of the last 15 years,” the GISAID Media spokesperson mentioned.
The spokesperson concluded saying that the uncooked knowledge in query from the China CDC not being made out there is “not GISAID’s decision to make. This decision rests solely with the data generators”.
