[–] GuruFault 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I am a scientist and I have to agree that it is /really/ hard to give up a competitive code-base for free. Others feel the same way about their datasets. In addition, it can be challenging to take the time to polish things up enough that there is no sense of professional pride being put on the line by sharing something that doesn't look perfect. However, you can rest easy for three reasons. First, at least within my discipline and I suspect many others, unless your work is entirely and groundbreakingly novel, few are likely to make use of what you make available. This is especially true if your released work doesn't have a lot of polish on it. Second, it is common practice to release work under some sort of attributional license. That means that others who use your work must cite it. The advantage in this is that if what you have done is leveraged by many in the scientific community, you will get due credit for it. This will be reflected in citation metrics like your h-index. Finally, you retain a huge advantage. You already understand the work that you are publishing and you have all of the time from the end of your data collection to publication in order to get started on the next project in the series. Frequently this will provide you with at least a second publication from your source data / source code prior to anybody else even beginning to try to wrap their heads around your first publication.
[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Not a scientist but I think keeping the dataset until you publish is quite alright. With publishing everything that was peer reviewed must be made public. Of course everybody that subsequently uses your data must cite you.
[–] Rostin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The importance of competition is something that a lot of proponents of absolute openness may not consider, especially those who aren't working scientists.
Most researchers aren't in the game for purely altruistic reasons. It's fun to be first and best, even if it's at something that only 5 other people in the world care about. Scientific journals were created not primarily to disseminate ideas, but to keep track of who discovered things first.
Some openness is necessary for scientific progress to continue. Too much openness risks destroying a prime motivation that many scientists have for doing science.
[–] Reow ago
Agreed. Adding to this, funds tend to be allocated to those who succeed. If some people do all of the hard work and others reap all of the glory, it'll just encourage more vultures/opportunists and discourage those who would put in the effort.