3 ms·
The OP was right, though. Just making the data accessible and documented is a huge undertaking. It's truly a laudable effort. From the other side, I cannot ima
by usernam 9y ago
The OP was right, though. Just making the data accessible and documented is a huge undertaking. It's truly a laudable effort.
From the other side, I cannot imagine using the data without intimate knowledge of the entire setup. There are very few people that can look meaningfully at such kind of data, which is why publishing the dataset (and all the work it involves) is often neglected.
Not to defend the behavior in any way, but remind yourself: in the current research model, if you can't make a publication with it, it's not worth your time. For a dataset, I've seen people factor-in the effort to make it public VS the potential citations you could get out of it.
disclaimer: I work in research
- makmanalp 9y ago> in the current research model, if you can't make a publication with it, it's not worth your time Which is why it's high time publishing data along with research is made the default, if not mandatory. This way the incentives are aligned and there's time and money budget for this vital task. Some journals are leading the way here.
- kobeya 9y agoJournals should not accept for publication articles which do not come with data and analysis source code for full replication of the results reported.
- Certhas 9y agoThere are very valid reasons for embargo periods. Other than that I agree. That should be the default.
- eternauta3k 9y agoWhy do you believe journals are the correct place to apply pressure?
- kobeya 9y agoBecause in principle peer review is the basis of scientific progress. Without peer review, poor incentives lead to scientific inquiry about as accurate or useful as Buzzfeed. Of course modern journals are a disgrace to the enlightenment. But the solution is to fix them, or if that can't be done, replace them. Not to stop the system of peer review entirely.