Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by adreno, Mar 3, 2017.
That's good practice.
Hopefully he gets a job offer with a more reputable organization.
Arrogance, powerful sense of over-entitlement, criticism-avoidance behaviour, cannot cope with open discussion about the need for openness of data. Funny thing - I think we have encountered that before? Oh yes - psychiatry-driven research.
Fire safety inspector asked to resign after refusing to certify uninspectable building as safe.
Okay, not quite but if you can keep the inconvenients bits hidden from the reviewer it boils down to the same thing.
Had a look at the first several comments. Mostly positive toward sharing the data.
Will share on twitter in support of GS.
the comments are great - I've read several and did not come across any that were opposed to sharing data. My favorite is this one: "My data? It's the best data in the world! Huge data. Believe me! It's fantastic!"
"Psychology, you run the constant risk of your perfect analysis being derailed by not knowing that an incident in third grade instilled your subject with a subconscious urge to lie to anyone wearing corduroy.
Hence, the saying "it's not an exact science"..."
I liked that one.
That's nuts. Not releasing raw data to the public, sure I can understand that. Not showing it to the referee who needs to judge whether the results actually follow from the data, and whether the study is valid? That's like "sure you can inspect this restaurant, but you are not allowed inside the kitchen".
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.