Academia is no stranger to ego clashes. We've all heard stories of researchers stepping over each other to claim the next big breakthrough or secure their stake in a coveted project. While not every institution is like this, it’s hard to avoid entirely, especially in large, diverse groups. As much as we might work to foster positive group dynamics and collegial relationships, changing individual behavior is no easy task.
Some people are simply more inclined toward individualism and possessiveness. And the bigger the ego, the harder it is to shift that mindset.
And while one “rotten apple” doesn’t always spoil the bunch in research teams, individual actions can have a significant impact on others.
The sense of possession over data is a prime example of this.
Yes, it’s true. Collecting data is hard work. It's time-consuming, requires a lot of effort, and is often tied to the success of future publications. This is especially true for data sets that have long-term value - data that will always be relevant, always have something important to reveal. Sharing that data feels like giving away your chance for more papers, more recognition.
But holding onto data too tightly isn’t just unhealthy for you - it’s bad for the entire scientific community. The real issue? Raw data doesn’t change, but interpretations can. That means your data, not your publications, is the true cornerstone of your contribution to advancing knowledge.
Someone once said that "articles are nothing but a big billboard for the true contribution: your data." It’s the data that represents the real work - the real contribution. Sure, your next paper might be a career-defining one. But instead of holding onto it for fear of losing out, focus on articulating a strategy that lets your data to be shared.
Because, at the end of the day, what’s more important? Another line on your CV, or the overall advancement of human knowledge?
The choice should be clear. Let your data make the impact it’s meant to. Because science grows when data flows.
--João
Some people are simply more inclined toward individualism and possessiveness. And the bigger the ego, the harder it is to shift that mindset.
And while one “rotten apple” doesn’t always spoil the bunch in research teams, individual actions can have a significant impact on others.
The sense of possession over data is a prime example of this.
Yes, it’s true. Collecting data is hard work. It's time-consuming, requires a lot of effort, and is often tied to the success of future publications. This is especially true for data sets that have long-term value - data that will always be relevant, always have something important to reveal. Sharing that data feels like giving away your chance for more papers, more recognition.
But holding onto data too tightly isn’t just unhealthy for you - it’s bad for the entire scientific community. The real issue? Raw data doesn’t change, but interpretations can. That means your data, not your publications, is the true cornerstone of your contribution to advancing knowledge.
Someone once said that "articles are nothing but a big billboard for the true contribution: your data." It’s the data that represents the real work - the real contribution. Sure, your next paper might be a career-defining one. But instead of holding onto it for fear of losing out, focus on articulating a strategy that lets your data to be shared.
Because, at the end of the day, what’s more important? Another line on your CV, or the overall advancement of human knowledge?
The choice should be clear. Let your data make the impact it’s meant to. Because science grows when data flows.
--João