The core of my frustration with #OpenScience practices:
We cannot have a true Open Science until we dispel the myth that papers contain usable descriptions of scientific processes.
This cannot happen until researchers are trained, using evidence-based pedagogy, to read scientific articles for USE, not citation, not argument support, but USE!!!
In my seminars, all learners leave convinced we need a documentation system grounded in usability, & that papers are NOT fit for purpose. >>
@melisgl True though the reason we write papers is presumably to contribute to the scientific record such that our science can be understood, potentially reproduced and built upon.
That can't happen with the inconsistently incomplete info available in papers. You may argue that science does build on past discoveries but it does so by reading between the lines and educated guessing, which produces exorbitant amounts of research waste, e.g. the file-drawer problem.
But returning to users >>
If say a policy maker is going to use some piece of scientific information, it should be well documented enough so that a science advisor can evaluate the reliability of that science. Without accurate and complete documentation, that assessment cannot happen, thus creating a situation where the policy maker may support actions that are not scientifically sound, with dire social repercussions.
No matter who is using the science, sound foundational documentation is essential.
@aeryn_thrace When I argue for more reproducibility, meaningful review or more quality control in general, I get this pushback:
"The individual paper is not a complete product. The overall knowledge of the field is. Science is a noisy process that time smooths. If you want quality and filtering, you have to wait."
I think relying on time to such extent is inefficient, but it's hard to know how much quality control leads to the most efficient science. You seem to be arguing that we need more.
Monica Gonzalez-Marquez
Gábor Melis