LIGO and Open Science | In the Dark

lterrat's bookmarks 2017-08-09


"Even allowing open access to data doesn’t always solve the reproducibility problem. Often extensive numerical codes are needed to process the measurements and extract meaningful output. Without access to these pipeline codes it is impossible for a third party to check the path from input to output without writing their own version, assuming that there is sufficient information to do that in the first place. That researchers should publish their software as well as their results is quite a controversial suggestion, but I think it’s the best practice for science. In any case there are often intermediate stages between `raw’ data and scientific results, as well as ancillary data products of various kinds. I think these should all be made public. Doing that could well entail a great deal of effort, but I think in the long run that it is worth it.

I’m not saying that scientific collaborations should not have a proprietary period, just that this period should end when a result is announced, and that any such announcement should be accompanied by a release of the data products and software needed to subject the analysis to independent verification."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » lterrat's bookmarks

Tags: oa.open_science oa.comment oa.reproducibility oa.discussions

Date tagged:

08/09/2017, 23:29

Date published:

08/09/2017, 19:29