[open-science] Let us denonce the pseudo-open Public Library of Science
Paola Di Maio
paola.dimaio at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 04:03:41 UTC 2017
Maybe we should change the thread subject to
reproducibility of science
for me, 'hard' science is all about reproducibility - can the same result
be obtained consistently - and if a result is not reproducible, it means
the phenomenon needs researched/understood further, either by adjusting
methods or samples etc.
At the same time, I am sure there are a lot of singular events occurring
once that cannot be reproduced - such as astrobomical phenomena - and yet
studied/researched using a scientific method - that's still good stuff.
A lot also depends on the scale (space, time) some objects of study are of
a scale too large or too small to be reproduced, yet they are observable
Suddently I feel this conversation is becoming deep
> I believe that most researchers would never fabricate data,
I disagree- most researchers fabricate data if it brings in funds and if
they can get away with it. (argument for replicability)
Heather: replicability is one of the many key arguments - among the many
others - for open data, purely to enable results to be verified - as
Popper says, not me :-)
Paola Di Maio
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 February 2017 at 15:54, Heather Morrison <
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>> My argument (so far) is that replicability is a poor argument for open
>> data. Open data does not facilitate replication, nor is it necessary to
> I think we may be debating the meaning of the word 'replication', but as I
> see it, open data facilitates *partial* replication. We shouldn't pretend
> that rerunning the computation totally verifies a result, but it's not
> pointless either.
> I believe that most researchers would never fabricate data, but that it's
> quite common to tweak the analysis a bit to get an interesting result that
> you can publish. If we have the raw data and the computational steps done
> on them, that's the starting point for evaluating: Does it hold up if I use
> this kind of analysis? What if I change this assumption? That point looks
> like an outlier, what happens if I exclude it?
> That doesn't mean we should have 100% confidence in the data going into
> the analysis. But I think it would be a big step forwards for reproducible
> research if it was normal for the analysis steps to be reproduced.
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science