Gli imperativi dell’open science | Scienza in Rete

[From Google's English] "The first magazine published since 1665, is still one of the first scientific journal order, was the Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society , conceived by Henry Oldenburg , a German theologian, first secretary of the newly founded Royal Society. Henry entertained assiduous correspondence with people we would now call scientists, both in Europe and elsewhere. Instead of keeping his private correspondence, Oldenburg thought it would be a good idea to publish it. Convinced that the new Society to do so, thus creating a newspaper. He made ​​two requests to his correspondents: the first that they should write in their own language and not in Latin; the second, crucial that the evidence (data) to support a scientific hypothesis were to be published together with the hypothesis itself. Olderburg also invented the peer review by asking two colleagues to examine the items before publication to ensure that they had a sound logic, that the evidence was understandable and that the observations were original. Adhere to the second principle of Oldenburg allowed others to examine the logic of an idea published and the extent to which this idea was supported by the associated data and allowed replication and reuse ... The world of Oldenburg has changed. The last twenty years have seen a revolution in the speed at which data can be acquired in the volume and complexity which can be stored and immediacy of the ubiquitous communication. We are facing a storm and the construction of scientific knowledge. In fact, the new Society had its unprecedented data at the same time creates significant challenges and great opportunities for the way science is done ... The magazines can no longer contain the data that are the basis of many scientific concepts and neither the scientists nor the magazines have taken the step, which would have been obvious, to make the data relevant to a publication available simultaneously and invariably in an electronic database . An example of the consequences of this lost link between the idea and the proof is represented by what happened in 2011 when they tried to replicate the results of 50 reference works in oncology preclinical and you managed to do so only with 11%. This is because the data were completely absent or only partial or metadata (data about data) were missing or inadequate, in addition to the widespread problem of wrong analysis ..."