3 ms·
From the article. > After crunching the numbers, “we think that around 3,000 studies could be affected,” says Dr Eklund. But without revisiting each and every
by daveguy 10y ago
From the article.
> After crunching the numbers, “we think that around 3,000 studies could be affected,” says Dr Eklund. But without revisiting each and every study, it is impossible to know which those 3,000 are.
This is why every single scientific study should include raw data and complete analysis methods. If these two items are not provided and the results of putting raw data through the analysis is not repeatable the work should not pass peer review.
If Elsevier etc are going to be rent seeking and charging ridiculous sums for a single article they should be providing the data analysis confirmation and storage as well.
- tokai 10y agoYou are never ever going to get the scientists on board with that. Its a lot easier to publish a simple correlation study, than it is to gather and good set of scientific data. The way we evaluate and fund science would have to change fundamentally before sharing data openly wouldn't be carrier suicide. Another point is that such datasets can not always be shared legally.