I agree that forced sharing of data is an absurd requirement. It would make sense if the data itself was attributable and citable, so that scientists can get recognition, citations and attribution when their data is being used by other studies and when these citations have the same kind of impact to their career as do article citations. Journals try to enforce data sharing because they want to maintain their position as arbiters of academic affairs.
It's important to recognize that PLOS' new data sharing policy is only about data directly tied to the publication of a traditional journal article. So while PLOS authors are being forced to share their data, it's only done in the context of a published article, which will accrue citations, recognition, and attribution in the standard way.
So any data shared by this policy WILL absolutely be tied to the traditional methods of scientific credit, via the linked journal article. To me, requiring that reasonable data is published and archived alongside scientific literature doesn't seem absurd at all.
> Journals try to enforce data sharing because they want to maintain their position as arbiters of academic affairs.
Is there any evidence behind this claim? PLOS seems to behave in exactly the opposite way. It's true that SOME journals use extreme selectivity or control over copyright to maintain their position as arbiters of science. But PLOS, whose largest journal PLOS One is both open access and makes no judgment on the impact of the science it publishes, seems to be actively reducing the amount of control it exerts over academic activities.
Except that publishing an article has way way more influence than someone acknowledging the work you did. Because it shows you are getting new shit done.
