4 ms·

You mean to say, granting more wide recognition for the collection itself, rather than the analysis stemming from collection? Possibly, I don't know. Mostly th

You mean to say, granting more wide recognition for the collection itself, rather than the analysis stemming from collection? Possibly, I don't know. Mostly this is just my understanding from talking to peers in the social sciences and asking why they don't have open access like my field. I think the problem there though, is knowing what questions to ask (what data to collect) is the hardest part, but fits much more in line with the analysis aspect (ie forming a hypothesis) than collection (conducting a designed experiment). So an ideal researcher would show good work in both areas, not just one.

marcosdumay 12y ago
Exactly that. We can quite well be at awe to people that managed to collect difficult sets of data, instead of the people that made a superficial analysis on it and discovered something. While still reserving some respect for the people that do difficult analysis, of course. That problem is not specific to the social sciences. As far as I know, only physics are making some inroads on that change of attitude, but even there it's restricted to a few fields where data collection is extremely expensive (much more than at social sciences). I think that's one much needed change to adapt science to our current world.