A recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Redish et al. argues that ‘reproducibility failures are essential to scientific inquiry.’ The authors remind readers that progress in many fields often proceeds haltingly, with successes, retrenchments, reconsiderations, and revisions. As examples, Redish et al. summarize the history of the Four Color Theorem, the claim that Fourier series can characterize any function, and the conditions under which neural networks can carry out certain computations.
I’ve found myself at odds recently with colleagues who, like me, view themselves as advocates for open science. This post attempts to clarify what I see as the crux of our disagreements.
We don’t own our data Most researchers feel a strong sense of ownership about our data and often, properly so I think, feel especially protective of our research participants. The fact remains, however, that despite our essential role in determining what data get collected from whom and how, we researchers have the weakest claim to actually owning the data we collect.
If you plan to attend the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) meeting in Baltimore later this week, you might be interested in some of the open science activities that will be taking place:
On Friday, March 22, from 10-11:30 am, I am co-leading a conversation hour on the topic What SRCD is doing to address open science. We’ll focus on a set of new policies and guidelines to authors that the SRCD Task Force on Scientific Integrity and Openness produced.