3 ms·

Improving Transparency in Scientific Research

24 points by bmahmood 14y ago

bravura 14y ago
I've written before that I believe academics should share their code (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845070 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845070). This greatly improves repeatability of results, and saves other researchers a huge amount of time. My idea---which unfortunately I came up with towards the end of my academic career---was to create a public github from day 1. Because it made me more conscious that other people would be able to see my code, this is a vast improvement in usability over deciding only halfway through that the code would be public. Unfortunately, many academics are scared of this approach. Sharing their earliest thoughts and meanderings makes them feel exposed, and strips away the veneer of unassailability that only showing finished work gives. And I will admit that I deleted repos that of work that was failure to find. One potential solution is conferences that give priority to researchers who share their code. (I've seen this occasionally, but can't remember where right now.)
zerostar07 14y ago
This mostly has to do with Life sciences. Most other fields have embraced open publishing and data collaboration, with remarkable results. Life scientists stubbornly insist on defending their tiny castles and not changing the rules with which funding is given.
- shiven 14y ago
  If only changing the rules was as easy as creating a git repo. Not being snarky, just cynical of people who appear to have no experience regarding the realities of a career in hardcore life sciences.
  - zerostar07 14y ago
    Exactly what you say. Nobody wants to volunteer to change any rules. It's sad that researchers have to be forced by their universities to even allow open access. When career is above all, science lags.
- emmelaich 14y ago
  I don't think that that is actually true. My small tangential involvement with attempting to collect, centralise and index scientific data show me scientists are very reluctant to share their data; at least prematurely. Two main reasons appear to be: 1. The sheer amount of time it takes. It means coordinating and discussing and cooperating with a bunch of often non-scientists who do not have the same goals as you. 2. Premature release might lead to premature criticism, or even someone publishing a paper on the same topic as you, partly referencing your data on which you worked so long and so hard. * my experience was with physical science mostly (marine, oceanographic, atmospheric) but some life science.

24 points by bmahmood 14y ago

I've written before that I believe academics should share their code (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845070 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3845070). This greatly improves repeatability of results, and saves other researchers a huge amount of time. My idea---which unfortunately I came up with towards the end of my academic career---was to create a public github from day 1. Because it made me more conscious that other people would be able to see my code, this is a vast improvement in usability over deciding only halfway through that the code would be public. Unfortunately, many academics are scared of this approach. Sharing their earliest thoughts and meanderings makes them feel exposed, and strips away the veneer of unassailability that only showing finished work gives. And I will admit that I deleted repos that of work that was failure to find. One potential solution is conferences that give priority to researchers who share their code. (I've seen this occasionally, but can't remember where right now.)

zerostar07 14y ago

This mostly has to do with Life sciences. Most other fields have embraced open publishing and data collaboration, with remarkable results. Life scientists stubbornly insist on defending their tiny castles and not changing the rules with which funding is given.

shiven 14y ago
If only changing the rules was as easy as creating a git repo. Not being snarky, just cynical of people who appear to have no experience regarding the realities of a career in hardcore life sciences.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  Exactly what you say. Nobody wants to volunteer to change any rules. It's sad that researchers have to be forced by their universities to even allow open access. When career is above all, science lags.
emmelaich 14y ago
I don't think that that is actually true. My small tangential involvement with attempting to collect, centralise and index scientific data show me scientists are very reluctant to share their data; at least prematurely. Two main reasons appear to be: 1. The sheer amount of time it takes. It means coordinating and discussing and cooperating with a bunch of often non-scientists who do not have the same goals as you. 2. Premature release might lead to premature criticism, or even someone publishing a paper on the same topic as you, partly referencing your data on which you worked so long and so hard. * my experience was with physical science mostly (marine, oceanographic, atmospheric) but some life science.