> I want a world where “I did a study, but I can’t show you the data” should be taken as seriously as “I determined P = NP, but I can’t show you the proof.” Th

> I want a world where “I did a study, but I can’t show you the data” should be taken as seriously as “I determined P = NP, but I can’t show you the proof.” The fact that this is not standard practice highlights some societal bias in favor of people in white lab coats that can't possibly be suspected of fraud or incompetence - for it will shatter our sense of safety and control over the world. People are people and power corrupts. When your publication has the power to turn you into a celebrity, skyrocket your career and land you a top paying job and speaking arrangements, the corruption potential is strong. As the author further elaborates: > But even if it’s only 1%, these will make up much more than 1% of published studies, and much more than 1% of important ground-breaking published studies, because correct studies can only prove true things, but false studies can prove arbitrarily interesting hypotheses (did you know there was an increase in the suicide rate on days that Donald Trump tweeted?!?) and those are the ones that will get published and become famous. > So if the lesson of the original replication crisis was “read the methodology” and “read the preregistration document”, this year’s lesson is “read the raw data”. Which is a bit more of an ask. Especially since most studies don’t make it available.