Well, I can, because I've been actually following an open data policy myself. So I've been sharing my data with my publications for the past three publications, and I am planning to do so for the forthcoming publications. So I've been having a good experience with it. At first you feel a bit naked because you think that you've done proper analysis that the data and support your conclusions. But let's say that someone thinks otherwise and might use your data to contradict your conclusions or to question your analysis approach. So you do feel a bit naked in that sense, but I think it's once you've done it, then you get used to it and it becomes natural to you. So it's once you've overcome that first hurdle, then I think it's just part of the normal processes, publishing the papers or anything like that. >> Did you felt at that time that it was something that came from your own initiative? Or was it something that you felt that you would be feeling okay with that? Because sometimes that is still a closed boundary that we need to sometimes overcome. The fact that you feel right with it? >> Yes, this is something I imposed myself because I teach a expensive design. I give talks on reproducibility. And I realized that I was giving talks on reproducibility. But I was not doing as I preached. So to be consistent and not to be a hypocrite. I had to come to a place where I said, well, you have to do it, you have to plan ahead. And part of the reason why I wasn't doing it is because there's some planning to it and structuring the data. So it is understandable by someone else and also in such a way that you'll feel comfortable with. So I did have to force myself to do it, but that you raised an interesting question, which is, as a supervisor, should I impose that on my own students? Saying okay, you're going to do this research not for me, but with me, okay? [LAUGH] >> Which I think is a different issue, because I think we saw it as well that when you are in the group and you are taking care of data while the data belongs to the group that is correct. But if you are taking care, for example, like we saw in the video that you have data from patients that you collect with patients, the data belongs, in fact, to the patients. It belongs to your group in the sense that you analyze it. But the data that is shared is from the patients. So it becomes also a necessary way to disseminate that data in an open science practice. While you try also to keep confidentiality at the most that you can like they say. >> But that's another yet another level. Here I was running on who? >> It is the group? >> Within the group who owns, who takes ownership for the data. So without giving you a definite answer, I would say that this is something that has to be discussed beforehand. Yes, I agree with that, between the supervisor and the supervisee. >> Yeah, you have to tell your students that here we practice an opened data policy and open science policy. So we will pre register, we will publish open access, and we will also publish our data. Are you comfortable with that? Of course this doesn't mean that the student is always free to give his own own account and to do as he or she believes is right. Because there's some level of pressure because we are indifferent, a radical positions. The student depends on you to complete his or her degree. You have some leverage. You have sometimes too much leverage over your students. And you actually have to have that perception that you may have indeed be forcing your own way of doing things to a student. But I think it also depends on the level where the student is. A bachelor student is different from a master student, which is quite different in terms of autonomy from a PhD student. Let alone a postdoc, but at every level which this should be discussed. The harm has been done. The discussion that we would mentioning before that one should have beforehand was not that they didn't have that discussion. So now the harm has been done. So probably some damage control needs to be done in such a way that some level of compromise is achieved. And Would you say so as well? >> Yes I would say also that this should have been taking place, of course beforehand. Since that didn't happen now it's the time to maybe go on a different level, which is they have a tacit conversation. And while they disclose their thoughts, which is something that we often don't see while we are looking at two people having a chat. I would say that they have to come clean on their intentions if the supervisor was a little bit more clear than he was. But in that sense, but still, you should at the same time say why you would like to bring the data to the group. And then if this still remains a conflict, because I think the conflict exists still, they might need to go to a third party that will need to help them solving this issue. And here if there is a person that is responsible for this type of ethical situations, I would say that would be the advice ones. So not something that relies on the two people that clearly have a conflict but then going to another to another third person. >> Yes, I was about to suggest that to mediate between the two, but probably first, I would probably try to contact the new group. So because of the supervisor, maybe the supervisor, because the joint publication could be a possibility because part of the work was done here. The other part will be done some somewhere else. And you can have more than one. Could work against one group against the other in a collaborative setup that will be positive. >> If an agreement cannot be achieved, then I would ask for a third party, a mediator to, in a way, try to resolve this conflict.
