sarah darwins
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,508
- Location
- Cornwall, UK
This article (published Friday 16th Jan 2016) has a general focus on questions of transparency and data sharing in science, and touches on issues of interest to us:
Link to full article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ld-the-key-to-making-science-more-transparent
The author is Pete Etchells — "the Guardian's science blog network coordinator". He has coauthored a paper suggesting a new approach:
Only a dozen or so comments, all apparently from people working in research and nearly all against the proposal. I was struck by this phrase in one comment — "And once again I see Chambers and Etchells seeing all scientific endeavours as though they are flaky psychology projects which isn't so." Do most scientists still see psychology as flaky non-science? In which case, why aren't they more vocal about it? Isn't it harming their reputations, too?
In many cases, there are justifiable reasons as to why it would be inappropriate to publish data – for instance, if the study is about a very specific set of people with a rare medical disorder, it may still be possible to identify individuals from anonymised data. But regardless of whether or not the materials and data are publicly available, there should always be a clear justification as to why (or why not) within the paper itself. As long as reviewers are happy with the justification, the review process can go on as usual.
Link to full article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ld-the-key-to-making-science-more-transparent
The author is Pete Etchells — "the Guardian's science blog network coordinator". He has coauthored a paper suggesting a new approach:
But what about bottom-up approaches to the problem of promoting open science?
On Wednesday, a new paper published in Royal Society Open Science argued for a new, grassroots approach to this problem, by putting the power back into the hands of scientists at the coalface of research, by changing the way that we think about the peer review process (full disclosure: both myself and fellow Head Quarters blogger Chris Chambers are co-authors on the paper).
Only a dozen or so comments, all apparently from people working in research and nearly all against the proposal. I was struck by this phrase in one comment — "And once again I see Chambers and Etchells seeing all scientific endeavours as though they are flaky psychology projects which isn't so." Do most scientists still see psychology as flaky non-science? In which case, why aren't they more vocal about it? Isn't it harming their reputations, too?
Last edited: