
Computer says: oops - miraj
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21702166-two-studies-one-neuroscience-and-one-palaeoclimatology-cast-doubt
======
daveguy
From the article.

> After crunching the numbers, “we think that around 3,000 studies could be
> affected,” says Dr Eklund. But without revisiting each and every study, it
> is impossible to know which those 3,000 are.

This is why every single scientific study should include raw data and complete
analysis methods. If these two items are not provided and the results of
putting raw data through the analysis is not repeatable the work should not
pass peer review.

If Elsevier etc are going to be rent seeking and charging ridiculous sums for
a single article they should be providing the data analysis confirmation and
storage as well.

~~~
tokai
You are never ever going to get the scientists on board with that. Its a lot
easier to publish a simple correlation study, than it is to gather and good
set of scientific data. The way we evaluate and fund science would have to
change fundamentally before sharing data openly wouldn't be carrier suicide.

Another point is that such datasets can not always be shared legally.

------
taspeotis
Previously:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12032269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12032269)

------
tomrod
Would open sourcing critical software have avoided this?

~~~
xyzzy123
No, but it at least makes it more detectable.

