3 ms·
It’s common practice for scientists to keep logbooks for this exact reason. This is already done.
by joppy 8y ago
It’s common practice for scientists to keep logbooks for this exact reason. This is already done.
- ordu 8y agoAs I understand that logbooks are not available to other scientists, and if group of highly qualified scientists are making a meta-research, combining results of a dozen of articles (and rejecting two more dozens from their study), they cannot use logbooks of articles to reason about articles.
- joppy 8y agoIt's true that more open-access logbooks might improve things. But even if you had the logbook, you still wouldn't have the custom equipment, experimental apparatus, experimental subjects, and oversight throughout the experiment which you would need to verify that the logbook itself has data worth a damn. At some point, you have to trust other professionals working in your field to do their work well. Or rather, decide who to trust.
- ordu 8y agoMaybe you are right, but I have a chat with a person who did meta-research and as I understand they dig into articles, looking for methodology, and if they found methodology good enough they would incorporate that article into their meta-research. It impies trust in good intentions of others. But not the blind trust that anything was done by a scientist was done good. If logbook can be used to verify that data processing methods was picked before the first experimental subject came to a lab, then it is already a good sign. It could be much harder to do some p-hacking like [this](https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choc...).