anon_barcode

3 ms·

1.
by anon_barcode 13y ago
True. Nobody can check if your data + your methodology = the results you claim. But it is quite common for someone to take the same problem, collect their own data and run their own analysis (both steps can be completely different from the
2.
by anon_barcode 13y ago
In astronomy we are still fighting for public data. Verification of results comes from another researcher collecting his own data and running his own analysis. Out of curiosity, do you work for industry or academia?
3.
by anon_barcode 13y ago
Valid. But they are presenting the methodology they claim went into the code and allowing you to agree or disagree with the methodology. If you agree, you take their answer, if you disagree, you implement a different methodology, which nece
4.
by anon_barcode 13y ago
"If you are publishing articles with no source code, how is that even science?" - We have a methods section in the paper, just like in the science fair. "After all, if you publish details of how you worked stuff out, even without source cod
5.
by anon_barcode 13y ago
Several reasons. Firstly, it's a boys club up top-- a lot of PhD requirements are build around basically hazing rituals. It's designed to make you "prove" yourself-- instead of remembering the Frats founding members, we memorize moments of
6.
by anon_barcode 13y ago
As an astronomer I hope this does not take off. The threat to job security is not just "perceived". Astronomers are frequently kept in a state of constant job-induced anxiety by the prevalent practice of fighting for 6 month - 2 year "postd