This editorial (published today!) goes exactly in that direction: http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/M15-2928-PAP.pdf And they are asking feedback: https://forms.acponline.org/webform/comments-icmje%E2%80%99s-proposals-sharing-clinical-trial-data and making the feedback public (29 submissions so far).
I think we should all comment there (maybe after discussing here), even though that is just a field (medical) and certainly not all of science. On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Neil Chue Hong (SSI) <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'll add that besides a workflow system which would have helped (but >> not necessarily panacea, errors could be made there too), an open data >> reproducible paper would have helped even more: with all those >> skeptics, someone would have tried to re-run the analysis seeking for >> errors, and probably found it much sooner. > > Agreed. > > In trying to research this example for a talk I'm giving, it turns out > the data is available - but not licensed or easy to find if you're not > interested in African genome data: > http://africangenome.org/index.php/African_genome_ftp > > Simply depositing and referencing this data to the original Science > paper would have made allowed easier reanalysis, given that the > authors did do a pretty good job of describing their workflow (even if > it was run incorrectly) in the supplemental materials. > > It also points back to the fact that validation in science often > relies on the scratch and sniff test of seeing if it looks "right". In > a case like this where the result appears to contradict other > established theories, it's even more important to open your work to > scrutiny. > >>> Do you have a list of these cases on the web, or is this an informal thing >>> between you two? I'd be interested in seeing the list. > > Me too! > > Neil > >>>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 09:36, C. Titus Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> for many years, Greg and I and others have been collecting "mea culpas" >>>> on research failures due to computational mistakes -- here's one that >>>> caught my eye the other day: >>>> >>>> http://www.unz.com/gnxp/there-was-no-vast-migration-of-eurasians-into-africa/ >>>> >>>> Reads to me like a workflow system would have helped here... >>>> >>>> This is pretty high profile; last paragraph: >>>> >>>> If something like this happened to me I’d probably literally throw up. This >>>> is horrible. But then again, this paper made it into Science, and Nature >>>> wrote >>>> articles like this: First ancient African genome reveals vast Eurasian >>>> migration. The error has to be corrected. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> --titus >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org > > > > -- > Neil Chue Hong > Director, Software Sustainability Institute > EPCC, University of Edinburgh, JCMB, Edinburgh, EH9 3FD, UK > Tel: +44 (0)131 650 5957 > http://www.software.ac.uk/ > > LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilchuehong > Twitter: http://twitter.com/npch > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8876-7606 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
