4 ms·

I don't know that adding material kitchen-sink-style would necessarily be helpful. Something loaded down with hundreds of pages of addenda is as likely to make

I don't know that adding material kitchen-sink-style would necessarily be helpful. Something loaded down with hundreds of pages of addenda is as likely to make itself harder to follow as it is easier, as well as adding considerably to writing and editing time. If a point is unclear it'll likely be caught by reviewers, if it's not the researcher's contact details are there on the paper.

nwah1 7y ago
If websites and footnotes are structured well, it should be quite easy to allow people to dive more deeply into such things without distracting those who don't care.
- wyattpeak 7y ago
  Two concerns: - I'm unconvinced that hyperlinked websites are a good idea as a primary format for research. Research needs to be accessible in perpetuity. We've proven atrocious at keeping websites available and software running. - Lots of properly structured footnotes and labelled photos are, as I mentioned earlier, a large timesink. Writing papers is already a substantial time investment, which both distracts from other research and can dissuade researchers from publishing more minor results. Both of these are superable for the right reasons (e.g. CS research by its nature needs digital components), but adding material because photos are cheap isn't to my mind the right reason.
  - nwah1 7y ago
    Using lab automation equipment, and listing out which equipment was used is another step in the right direction. I'm thinking about it from the perspective of a software developer for whom things like jenkinsfiles, vagrantfiles, and CloudFormation templates are a thing. Science should have a similar standardized domain-specific way to specify their experiment setup procedures.
    - wyattpeak 7y ago
      Science does have a standardised domain-specific way to specify their experiment setup procedures. Scientists do list out which equipment they use. I think you're overstating the case for more addenda to the point of sophistry. All specification systems have weaknesses, and there are good reasons why those weaknesses are tolerated. The mere statement that a specification could be more accurate, without engaging with those reasons, isn't productive.

nwah1 7y ago

If websites and footnotes are structured well, it should be quite easy to allow people to dive more deeply into such things without distracting those who don't care.

wyattpeak 7y ago
Two concerns: - I'm unconvinced that hyperlinked websites are a good idea as a primary format for research. Research needs to be accessible in perpetuity. We've proven atrocious at keeping websites available and software running. - Lots of properly structured footnotes and labelled photos are, as I mentioned earlier, a large timesink. Writing papers is already a substantial time investment, which both distracts from other research and can dissuade researchers from publishing more minor results. Both of these are superable for the right reasons (e.g. CS research by its nature needs digital components), but adding material because photos are cheap isn't to my mind the right reason.
- nwah1 7y ago
  Using lab automation equipment, and listing out which equipment was used is another step in the right direction. I'm thinking about it from the perspective of a software developer for whom things like jenkinsfiles, vagrantfiles, and CloudFormation templates are a thing. Science should have a similar standardized domain-specific way to specify their experiment setup procedures.
  - wyattpeak 7y ago
    Science does have a standardised domain-specific way to specify their experiment setup procedures. Scientists do list out which equipment they use. I think you're overstating the case for more addenda to the point of sophistry. All specification systems have weaknesses, and there are good reasons why those weaknesses are tolerated. The mere statement that a specification could be more accurate, without engaging with those reasons, isn't productive.