4 ms·
Maybe not typically, but room temp superconductivity is a nobel prize level claim, and it seems that the experiment is not fully specified without the raw data.
by Gatsky 4y ago
Maybe not typically, but room temp superconductivity is a nobel prize level claim, and it seems that the experiment is not fully specified without the raw data.
- p_j_w 4y agoThe scientific community generally does a pretty good job of shooting down big claims like this that get published (see: Pons and Fleischmann), so what's the huge benefit? On top of this, if it's to have any value, the reviewers of the article would need to recreate whatever code was used to process the raw data OR audit the existing code to make sure it made sense, both of which are pretty heavy duty tasks. Reviewers don't get paid, so this is a good way to ensure no one wants to review articles for your journal.
- jimmydorry 4y agoIf there is substantial interest in the paper after it has been published, it would be a lot easier to verify with the raw data than without. Nothing about the peer review process necessarily needs change beyond immediately rejecting all papers that do not include the minimum amount of data to validate their claims (even if said data is simply stored and not immediately reviewed).