3 ms·

I agree. I'm annoyed how companies like Google get to release selected parts of their work, keep the rest secret, yet get accepted by top Journals. I am positiv

I agree. I'm annoyed how companies like Google get to release selected parts of their work, keep the rest secret, yet get accepted by top Journals. I am positive (and have seen reviews saying such) that academics would never get away with this kind of filtering of results.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ACow_Adonis 8y ago
I hate to break it to you, but academics certainly do get away with this practice. You simply don't have to report the 1000 results or hypothese that didn't generate positive findings: also see publication bias. Indeed not only is it present, but due to the various ways academia ranks citations and papers, it's fairer to say it's actually incentivised by academic culture.
skybrian 8y ago
I agree they should do it, but it looks like other researchers do sometimes get away without publishing their data? "Data sharing is a common requirement of funding or publication, though this obligation may come as a surprise to some authors—and to their colleagues who have had trouble acquiring data from other laboratories." https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0807-931 https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0807-931
newen 8y ago
Academics regularly get away with just posting results as graphs, without even the actual numbers in the graphs given out. And certainly not data, code, etc. I've done that for multiple papers in top journals in my field, and lots of others do the same. I give out the data and sometimes the code when people email me, but it's never required during the peer review process. Reviewers are just expected to believe the results in the submitted paper. I always find it funny when people hold so much faith in the peer review process, like the reviewers have some special knowledge or insight that let's them legitimize a paper. Majority of the time, the peer reviewers read the exact same thing everyone else reads, then provide suggestions for change, etc and eventually accept the paper for publication. But in terms of actual verification that the authors of the paper are not fabricating results, there is nothing remotely close to that.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ACow_Adonis 8y ago

I hate to break it to you, but academics certainly do get away with this practice. You simply don't have to report the 1000 results or hypothese that didn't generate positive findings: also see publication bias. Indeed not only is it present, but due to the various ways academia ranks citations and papers, it's fairer to say it's actually incentivised by academic culture.

skybrian 8y ago

I agree they should do it, but it looks like other researchers do sometimes get away without publishing their data? "Data sharing is a common requirement of funding or publication, though this obligation may come as a surprise to some authors—and to their colleagues who have had trouble acquiring data from other laboratories." https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0807-931 https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0807-931

newen 8y ago

Academics regularly get away with just posting results as graphs, without even the actual numbers in the graphs given out. And certainly not data, code, etc. I've done that for multiple papers in top journals in my field, and lots of others do the same. I give out the data and sometimes the code when people email me, but it's never required during the peer review process. Reviewers are just expected to believe the results in the submitted paper. I always find it funny when people hold so much faith in the peer review process, like the reviewers have some special knowledge or insight that let's them legitimize a paper. Majority of the time, the peer reviewers read the exact same thing everyone else reads, then provide suggestions for change, etc and eventually accept the paper for publication. But in terms of actual verification that the authors of the paper are not fabricating results, there is nothing remotely close to that.