Discussion that I think is worth having out in the open: coauthors and I were rejected from having a neuroimaging dataset reviewed in @ScientificData because data access required signing a data use agreement, which according to journal would jeopardize anonymity of reviewers. 1/

I'm not aiming to badmouth the specific journal. I just think it's important that we are transparent about how these decisions are made, so that we can build future-ready processes. E.g. can anonymity not be reasonably ensured in such a case? (I think it can). 2/

Should anonymity take precedence over privacy of data participants? Should journals adapt to how privacy regulations differ between countries (IMO yes), or should they introduce regional bias by e.g. only reviewing datasets that are published under a CC0 license? 3/

Something that's inconsistent about the journal's decision is the fact that another neuroimaging dataset requiring a similar DUA to be signed was reviewed and published by them. Did their policy change in the meantime? 4/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0020-y