3 ms·
At least in my own mental model of publishing a paper (I've published only a few), I'd want my coauthors to stick hot pokers in my if I made a mistake or got ca
by dekhn 2y ago
At least in my own mental model of publishing a paper (I've published only a few), I'd want my coauthors to stick hot pokers in my if I made a mistake or got careless. But then, my entire thesis was driven by a reproducible Makefile that downloaded the latest results from a supercomputer, re-ran the whole analysis, and wrote the latex necessary (at least partly to avoid making trivial mistakes). It was clear everything I was doing was just getting in the way of publishing high prestige papers.
- robwwilliams 2y agoAll too easy to understand your situation. NIH is finally but slowly waking up and is imposing more “onerous” (aka: essential and correct) data management and sharing (DMS) document. Every grant applicant now submits following these guidelines: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-24-175.html https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-24-1... Unfortunately, not all NIH institutes understand how to evaluate and moderate this key new policy. Oddly enough the peer reviewers do NOT have access to DMS plans as of this year.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y agoIs this a process whereby the researcher is forced to submit the thesis (null, etc) of the research, ahead of the study and its findings?
- robwwilliams 2y agoI think you are referring to clinical trial registration. Different idea and process (a QA-like step). The NIH DMS mandates are about the data generated by an award.