5 ms·

Much of science is the author's opinions, that is what makes you a scientist, you have to interpret the data you have collected. Publishing piles of data would

by s0rce 13y ago

Much of science is the author's opinions, that is what makes you a scientist, you have to interpret the data you have collected. Publishing piles of data would be completely useless to anyone without detailed and careful interpretation. The current system has its faults but some fields are at least making progress ensuring at least some of the data remains available. For certain projects there is currently no feasible way to openly distribute terabytes of data.

qwerta 13y ago
No, as a scientist one should give others chance to interpret data he has collected. One could interpret his own data, but it should be separate step and separate publication. Plus how we can be sure there is no some basic mistake in interpretation? And how study can even pass peer review if most of its sources are hidden? Technical difficulty is not really an excuse. Many studies are based on a few megabytes or even kilobytes of data. Astronomy and physics has no problem to distribute terabytes of data. To give an example: Tycho de Brahe made lot of measures of planet Mars positions. However he was not very skilled mathematician, so his interpretation would only make orbital parameters more precise. Luckily Kepler who was briliant mathematician had access to his data and could derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
- cing 13y ago
  Let's assume we live in the ideal world where source code, raw data, analysis pipelines, and processed data are accessible with a paper. In practice, do you think that graduate students and professors will have time to review this information and reinterpret the data? When I read or peer review a paper from a lab that I know produces good quality research, I wouldn't dare waste my time reviewing such information. I know in principle, sharing everything sounds nice, but it would drastically slow down the progress of science.
  - qwerta 13y ago
    Someone may review it in 1 or 10 years or maybe even in 1000 years. In future the review could be even automated. Even I could write robot which looks for mistakes in source code. Incorrect widely accepted study can cause lot of damage. I think share-everything is the only long term sustainable way.
- tedsanders 13y ago
  I think your view is too simplistic. You are wholly correct that it's good for scientists to publish data, and often progress is made when scientists see each other's data. However, often it's not practical to publish all data or knowledge about an experimental set up. Many of my experiments run on custom-built machines with years of maintenance and history. Detailing every step in a machine's history is far too onerous a requirement, even if it does occasionally contain a nugget of value. As rprospero says above, what counts as data? An important part of scientific publishing is having the judgment to know what to include and what not to include.

by s0rce 13y ago

qwerta 13y ago

No, as a scientist one should give others chance to interpret data he has collected. One could interpret his own data, but it should be separate step and separate publication. Plus how we can be sure there is no some basic mistake in interpretation? And how study can even pass peer review if most of its sources are hidden? Technical difficulty is not really an excuse. Many studies are based on a few megabytes or even kilobytes of data. Astronomy and physics has no problem to distribute terabytes of data. To give an example: Tycho de Brahe made lot of measures of planet Mars positions. However he was not very skilled mathematician, so his interpretation would only make orbital parameters more precise. Luckily Kepler who was briliant mathematician had access to his data and could derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

cing 13y ago
Let's assume we live in the ideal world where source code, raw data, analysis pipelines, and processed data are accessible with a paper. In practice, do you think that graduate students and professors will have time to review this information and reinterpret the data? When I read or peer review a paper from a lab that I know produces good quality research, I wouldn't dare waste my time reviewing such information. I know in principle, sharing everything sounds nice, but it would drastically slow down the progress of science.
- qwerta 13y ago
  Someone may review it in 1 or 10 years or maybe even in 1000 years. In future the review could be even automated. Even I could write robot which looks for mistakes in source code. Incorrect widely accepted study can cause lot of damage. I think share-everything is the only long term sustainable way.
tedsanders 13y ago
I think your view is too simplistic. You are wholly correct that it's good for scientists to publish data, and often progress is made when scientists see each other's data. However, often it's not practical to publish all data or knowledge about an experimental set up. Many of my experiments run on custom-built machines with years of maintenance and history. Detailing every step in a machine's history is far too onerous a requirement, even if it does occasionally contain a nugget of value. As rprospero says above, what counts as data? An important part of scientific publishing is having the judgment to know what to include and what not to include.