The &quot;second concern held by some&quot; is clearly a rhetorical figure of speech to make it sound as if they are not really sharing it, although the rest of what the authors say only deals with this exclusively. The first concern complete disappears. They are also using the term parasite or parasitically throughout the paper, which is not really helpful in this context.<p>The real concern of the authors, as it appears to me, is that you &quot;own&quot; the data that you produce and should have the exclusive right to use it - they call it &quot;obvious extension of the reported work&quot;.<p><i>How would data sharing work best? We think it should happen symbiotically, not parasitically. Start with a novel idea, one that is not an obvious extension of the reported work</i><p>On the other hand, if you have a novel idea, you are supposed to work &quot;symbiotically&quot; with the authors with <i>relevant coauthorship</i>:<p><i>Third, work together to test the new hypothesis. Fourth, report the new findings with relevant coauthorship to acknowledge both the group that proposed the new idea and the investigative group that accrued the data that allowed it to be tested</i><p>The problem is that science does not work this way. You cannot own the facts, as someone famously said. Imagine people in computer science or mathematics held the same attitude, especially in artificial intelligence&#x2F;machine learning.