On March 21, a day after GISAID (an open-access influenza genome database launched in 2008) suspended entry to all authors of a report posted on Zenodo, the general public database reversed its stand and lifted the momentary entry restrictions to all of the authors.
In an electronic mail to The Hindu, a spokesperson of GISAID Media stated that it determined to temporarily raise entry 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 momentary entry 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 choice to evaluation all proof and has invited the authors to share further data.
“The review is not complete,” the spokesperson stated within the electronic 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 didn’t remark whether or not the reversal of its stand vindicated the authors that the staff was in compliance with the foundations following the publication because the evaluation was nonetheless ongoing.
The spokesperson defined the explanations for temporarily blocking entry to the authors: posting the preprint disclosing the findings from the information to most people (versus solely related public well being authorities or different registered GISAID customers) and the truth that most 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 stated.
Blindsided
To a query whether or not the authors of the Zenodo report had been explicitly forewarned that their entry could be suspended in case of a violation, the spokesperson stated that the authors had 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 stated.
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 information 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 stated within the electronic mail to The Hindu. “It is noteworthy that the authors’ report extensively acknowledged that they received the request for information fromz GISAID, yet ignored GISAID’s request.”
In the report in Zenodo, the authors explicitly acknowledged that they had 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 problem about ambiguity round what constitutes a very good religion try and collaborate, GISAID Media stated that collaborations happen on GISAID on daily basis, and that GISAID fosters crucial interactions for the profit of international public well being, similar to within 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 identical knowledge generator has a manuscript below evaluation at a peer-reviewed scientific journal,” the spokesperson stated.
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 stick 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 stated.
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 stated.
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”.
