Title |
Why Open Drug Discovery Needs Four Simple Rules for Licensing Data and Models
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, September 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002706 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Antony J. Williams, John Wilbanks, Sean Ekins |
Abstract |
When we look at the rapid growth of scientific databases on the Internet in the past decade, we tend to take the accessibility and provenance of the data for granted. As we see a future of increased database integration, the licensing of the data may be a hurdle that hampers progress and usability. We have formulated four rules for licensing data for open drug discovery, which we propose as a starting point for consideration by databases and for their ultimate adoption. This work could also be extended to the computational models derived from such data. We suggest that scientists in the future will need to consider data licensing before they embark upon re-using such content in databases they construct themselves. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 12 | 23% |
United Kingdom | 8 | 15% |
Japan | 5 | 9% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Finland | 1 | 2% |
China | 1 | 2% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Norway | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 20 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 39 | 74% |
Scientists | 9 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 8 | 11% |
Germany | 4 | 6% |
Brazil | 2 | 3% |
Colombia | 1 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
Czechia | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 54 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 19 | 27% |
Other | 8 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 10% |
Other | 16 | 23% |
Unknown | 5 | 7% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Computer Science | 16 | 23% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 20% |
Chemistry | 8 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
Other | 14 | 20% |
Unknown | 7 | 10% |