[okfn-discuss] why data and process in academic publishing matters

Velichka Dimitrova velichka.dimitrova at okfn.org
Mon Apr 22 08:52:56 UTC 2013


With regard to changing policy, it might be then "a coincidence" that
Lagarde told Osborne<http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/18/george-osborne-imf-austerity>in
the same week that UK needs to re-think austerity. These are a few
politicians from EU and the US who had taken the 90% threshold level as a
benchmark in their policy.

The reason why the Reinhart and Rogoff case made so much news is that the
issue they have researched is so close to peoples' hearts. Austerity and
public sector cuts affect directly many people.

Economic studies get replicated and disproved very often, yet the this
particular one does is an issue that all people can relate to.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude however as Marc has suggested that this
would lead to less researchers sharing data. On a higher level journals and
research institutions might also decide that it is even more important to
reinforce data availability policies and subject authors to more scrutiny.

It is a very embarrassing case, where less transparency is not a solution.

More comments? Check out the
blog<http://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/22/reinhart-rogoff-revisited-why-we-need-open-data-in-economics/>

Velichka Dimitrova
Open Economics Project Coordinator
Open Knowledge Foundation
http://okfn.org | http://openeconomics.net




On 20 April 2013 18:24, Tony Bowden <tony at mysociety.org> wrote:

> > To the extent that the study resulted in suboptimal policies, the period
> > during which these wrong policies prevailed would have been shorter.
>
> Which, surely, is "not very much, really"?
>
> As you go on to say: "economics data is most often used to justify
> predetermined ideological positions"
>
> Yes, there are certainly people who used this study to (quite loudly)
> back up their existing positions, but I think it's stretching things
> to think that the study actually changed policy. If this study had had
> a different outcome it would either have been ignored, or used by
> people to back up whichever ideas it happened to now coincide with —
> just as people are already doing with the rebuttal.
>
> The battle lines in this area of economic theory were drawn long
> before 2010, and are likely to continue for quite some time.
>
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130422/5c96497d/attachment.html>


More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list