This post is to inform you about the publishing of an online-first version of our article titled “Critical remarks on current practices of data article publishing: issues, challenges, and recommendations”. The manuscript has gone through approximately 18 months of preparation and peer review to appear in the journal Data Science and Informetrics (DSI), finally.

This article examines the use of scientific arguments in negotiations on the status of Digital Sequence Information (DSI), focusing on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP). DSI is a placeholder term used in negotiations on the dematerialization of genetic resources: the ability to sequence “physical” genetic resources and use this “intangible” information, which radically changes research practices. The CBD (among other instruments) (...) establishes rules for Access to the Genetic Resource and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their utilization (ABS). This applies to “physical” genetic resources, but it is not clear for DSI. Indeed, different legal interpretations and political narrative are conflicting over the integration of DSI into these legal frameworks. This article explores how science is used in these negotiations, particularly in its rhetorical and epistocratic dimensions. The methodology combines an interdisciplinary approach (legal technique, philosophy of law and science) and a comparative discourse analysis: on the terminology; the inclusion of DSI in the definition of genetic material; and the inclusion of DSI in ABS systems. While scientific arguments play a crucial role in this technical issue, this article shows that scientific arguments can be used to support political positions (under the guise of objectivity and neutrality), and that this use of scientific arguments is not consistent, even contradictory (between PIP and CBD/ITPGRFA). -/- . (shrink)