4 ms·
Purely open-sourced publication and review; you have to publish your data along with your paper. A wikipedia style review process (or maybe more of a stackoverf
by RosanaAnaDana 9y ago
Purely open-sourced publication and review; you have to publish your data along with your paper. A wikipedia style review process (or maybe more of a stackoverflow/ wikipedia hybrid).
The biggest and most critical miss of the whole process is not having the data a paper is based on published along with the paper. If something is irreproducible, is it really scientific? If I don't have your data, can I really reproduce your results?
- robotresearcher 9y agoIf you can’t, the results are invalid. I can give you data that say anything. The reproduction that counts is where you obtain similar data independently. If you want to validate that my claims are justified BY MY DATA then you need my data. If you want to validate that my claims are justified by the universe, you need to get your own data and should avoid being polluted by mine. Having said that, I competely support publishing data by default. But not for the reason you state.