4 ms·

What's amazing to me is that journals don't require researchers to submit their raw data. At least, as far as I know. The only option for someone who wants to

What's amazing to me is that journals don't require researchers to submit their raw data. At least, as far as I know. The only option for someone who wants to double check research is to completely replicate a study, which is quite a bit more expensive than double checking the researcher's work.

frickinLasers 2y ago
Journals are incentivized to publish fantastic results. Organizing raw data in a way that the uninitiated can understand presents serious friction in getting results out the door. The organizations who fund the research are (finally) beginning to require it [0][1], and some journals encourage it, but a massive cultural shift is required and there will be growing pains. You could also try emailing the corresponding authors. Any good-faith scientist should be happy to share what they have, assuming it's well organized/legible. [0] https://new.nsf.gov/public-access https://new.nsf.gov/public-access [1] https://sharing.nih.gov/ https://sharing.nih.gov/
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > The organizations who fund the research are (finally) beginning to require it [0][1], and some journals encourage it Feels like wrong way round - organisations paying for journals should be demanding it as proof?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Replicating the results from someone's original data is difficult and time consuming, and other researchers aren't getting paid to do that (they're getting paid to do new research). And of course the (unpaid) reviewers don't have time either.
gvurrdon 2y ago
It's becoming more common for journals to have policies which require that raw data be made available. Here's some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_data One of the purposes of a site on which I work (https://fairsharing.org https://fairsharing.org) is to assist researchers in finding places where they might upload their data (usually to comply with publishers' requirements).

frickinLasers 2y ago

Journals are incentivized to publish fantastic results. Organizing raw data in a way that the uninitiated can understand presents serious friction in getting results out the door. The organizations who fund the research are (finally) beginning to require it [0][1], and some journals encourage it, but a massive cultural shift is required and there will be growing pains. You could also try emailing the corresponding authors. Any good-faith scientist should be happy to share what they have, assuming it's well organized/legible. [0] https://new.nsf.gov/public-access https://new.nsf.gov/public-access [1] https://sharing.nih.gov/ https://sharing.nih.gov/

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> The organizations who fund the research are (finally) beginning to require it [0][1], and some journals encourage it Feels like wrong way round - organisations paying for journals should be demanding it as proof?

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Replicating the results from someone's original data is difficult and time consuming, and other researchers aren't getting paid to do that (they're getting paid to do new research). And of course the (unpaid) reviewers don't have time either.

gvurrdon 2y ago

It's becoming more common for journals to have policies which require that raw data be made available. Here's some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_data One of the purposes of a site on which I work (https://fairsharing.org https://fairsharing.org) is to assist researchers in finding places where they might upload their data (usually to comply with publishers' requirements).