tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post3389942006078000631..comments2024-03-28T10:59:22.315+01:00Comments on Open Science - the better science?: Open Science and the Scientific Ethos: a Panacea?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-89866748199868696342016-02-01T21:50:36.554+01:002016-02-01T21:50:36.554+01:00Thanks Daniel, you are too kindThanks Daniel, you are too kindBarry Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014641257182329884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-23450273698024283042016-02-01T21:48:18.304+01:002016-02-01T21:48:18.304+01:00Hi 'km', thanks for your comments. I agree...Hi 'km', thanks for your comments. I agree, I think some kind of pre-registering (to an open register, of course) and an open notebook scheme would be a useful way of reconfiguring the system so that people can get a look at the methods and data used in studies.Barry Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014641257182329884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-6163669821395579542016-02-01T21:44:32.781+01:002016-02-01T21:44:32.781+01:00Thanks for your comments Judith. Yes, in the curre...Thanks for your comments Judith. Yes, in the current system, it seems the career of a researcher is helped neither by positive replications nor null results. You have to do something new or blow something old out of the water.<br /><br />And thanks for the article, it was interesting to read about trust from a perspective outside of STS.Barry Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014641257182329884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-41722995533564339722016-02-01T21:37:50.556+01:002016-02-01T21:37:50.556+01:00Thanks "es"! Yes you are right of course...Thanks "es"! Yes you are right of course. I was thinking more about organised scepticism not being able to be applied unless the methods, some of the data, and the results of experiments had actually been published - no scientist would make a judgement for or against a claim without some knowledge of how and why it was made. So some openness is necessary at least. <br /><br />I suppose I was arguing that some degree of open access to the published works was necessary, using the old meaning of 'open'. If this course has taught me anything, it is that you really have to be careful when using the word 'open', and define exactly what you mean (if that is even possible). My text would have been better had I done so.Barry Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014641257182329884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-33905631986446437522016-02-01T21:31:49.826+01:002016-02-01T21:31:49.826+01:00Thanks Walter. I tried to blindside you by saying ...Thanks Walter. I tried to blindside you by saying that open science is not a panacea in the last paragraph, but you are right that this argument wasn't fully developed in the piece itself. I wish I could say, like a journalist would, that the title was added by the sub-editor and I had no control over it; this is alas not true!Barry Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014641257182329884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-24248419423272676272016-02-01T21:28:32.272+01:002016-02-01T21:28:32.272+01:00Hi Steve,
Thanks for your comments. I would say t...Hi Steve,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. I would say that in the natural sciences, falsifiablitiy is not something to be afraid of; for natural scientists there is no science without falsifiablity!<br /><br />My feeling about open research cultures is that if projects are pre-registered, and this register is open to all, then some investigative person (maybe a science journalist even) would be able to find out just how many negative studies there had been, even if they hadn't been published in a journal. This could lead to an alleviation of some of the deleterious effects of publication bias.<br /><br />There are lots of 'woulds,' 'coulds' and 'shoulds' here though!.Barry Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014641257182329884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-77001304967386900052016-02-01T01:53:35.141+01:002016-02-01T01:53:35.141+01:00Thank you Barry.
The only question that I have is ...Thank you Barry.<br />The only question that I have is admittedly not too much connected to open cultures: why are we so much afraid of being erroneous or falsifiable in our makings of science? Is it just the reputation regimes that are institutionalized and institutionalizing in science or should we dig a bit deeper into the ways in which we make science (working)?<br />And if I try to turn my attention towards open research cultures, Will those enable us/or make it easier to make reflexive use out of negative or nill results? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12683199555280236048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-56465334543465392016-01-31T21:16:35.831+01:002016-01-31T21:16:35.831+01:00Thanks Barry for this very good contribution to Op...Thanks Barry for this very good contribution to Open Science. This blog post is easy to read, leads the reader through the blog and explains at the beginning of each paragraph what is to be expected. This helps a lot. <br />Let me add a short recommendation: The blog is titled with a question, I hoped to find an answers and find mostly facts (which are indeed very well elaborated). In the abstract Barry raised the question can openness cure science of its ills? I am sorry to say that there is no further discussion about “illness” which would be an interesting discussion. I personally find questions very good style – but would appreciate to find some more or less satisfying answers in the text.... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03987614903404711244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-50037374290237724972016-01-28T16:08:55.169+01:002016-01-28T16:08:55.169+01:00For me, the best example of Merton's organized...For me, the best example of Merton's organized skepticism in the workings of science is the peer review system. Scholarly literature is not regarded a "serious" contribution if it has not been peer-reviewed. Thus, I was not sure if I would totally agree with you that this norm "relies heavily on openness", as in peer review it is often a "double-blind" procedure...eshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04511991394577125297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-66330378688034852482016-01-19T15:19:28.521+01:002016-01-19T15:19:28.521+01:00Excellent critical reflection on openness and Mert...Excellent critical reflection on openness and Merton thinking. Deeply time-contextualized, well explained input. You underline precisely the complexity of human systems and take into account many elements. Thought provoking read!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11408388850155774953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-56690123091923831542016-01-08T11:22:27.853+01:002016-01-08T11:22:27.853+01:00Thanks for this interesting link between Merton an...Thanks for this interesting link between Merton and Open Science. Another major problem I see with reproducibility is also liked to the publication bias you mention, namely that merely reproducing experiments does not get you published (unless you can debunk a famous experiment). That means that positive replications do not help researchers career-wise and are thus not very attractive. I guess this means that the academic credit system would need to change as well if we want more quality control in science. An interesting addition to Shapin's account on trust and virtue is the following article by John Hardwig: http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/RoleTrust.pdfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212119320165356089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-51145105286002061262016-01-07T13:34:27.323+01:002016-01-07T13:34:27.323+01:00Barry, thanks for this input! In the bigger contex...Barry, thanks for this input! In the bigger context of open source methids already available e.g. for big data analysis maybe it would be necessary to rethink not so much quality control to be open but to reflect necessary infrastructures to get access to methods and data?kmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01308728128362959002noreply@blogger.com