Archive for March 2010
7 steps to restore trust in science – step 7
- Communicate about the process of science as well as the content [previous post]
- Make research outputs available to all for free [previous post]
- Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too [previous post]
- Publish peer review comments with research outputs. [previous post]
- Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs. [previous post]
- Make raw data available as early as possible. [previous post]
- Use new technology to open research conferences to all. Research conferences play an important role in the development of science. Initial finding are presented, ideas discussed and new insights generated. But access is restricted to those that can afford to travel to the conference and pay to register, making conferences appear closed. Technology makes is so easy to make research conferences more open, and at the simplest level all organisers need to do is publish a Twitter hash-tag. The participants then do the rest. Or why not make audio recordings available online together with slide presentations? With the help of a cheap video camera and YouTube, a video record can be published. Live streaming is a slightly more complicated option. In the face of all these choices some conferences organisers are trying to close down rather than open up, but surely more openness can only help us all to engage with the research that matters. After all, science has nothing to hide.
7 steps to restore trust in science – step 6
- Communicate about the process of science as well as the content [previous post]
- Make research outputs available to all for free [previous post]
- Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too [previous post]
- Publish peer review comments with research outputs. [previous post]
- Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs. [previous post]
- Make raw data available as early as possible. An essential feature of the scientific approach is repeating others’ work, either strengthening or calling into question their findings. To make this possible, all scientific reports are accompanied by detailed descriptions of the experimental methods used. But it has not been normal practice for researchers to make their raw data available. As science becomes more and more data rich this has to change. As well as a focus on how data has been generated, we also need to scrutinise the analysis of large and complex datasets. Re-analysis of data can reveal errors, confirm original findings and strengthen confidence, as a recent example illustrates. And the internet makes sharing data simple and almost cost free.
- Use new technology to open research conferences to all
7 steps to restore trust in science – step 5
- Communicate about the process of science as well as the content [previous post]
- Make research outputs available to all for free [previous post]
- Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too [previous post]
- Publish peer review comments with research outputs. [previous post]
- Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs. Science is becoming more and more specialised, so even scientists in related disciplines can find it challenging understand work that isn’t directly in their field. The challenges that people without a scientific background face are even greater, so scientific research appears remote. If every piece of research had a short clear summary written in non-technical language it would help everyone be clear about its implications.
- Make raw data available as early as possible
- Use new technology to open research conferences to all
7 steps to restore trust in science – step 4
- Communicate about the process of science as well as the content [previous post]
- Make research outputs available to all for free [previous post]
- Publish negative results and unsuccessful experiments too [previous post]
- Publish peer review comments with research outputs. Peer review is a central process in science for maintaining quality. Peer review takes many forms, both formal and informal, but a key stage is the peer review of scientific outputs. But this process is not transparent, even to those within the subject. Often the anonymous peer reviewers make a major contribution to the content of papers adding extra weight to the robustness of the findings. This could be made more apparent if peer review comments were published, and it was made clear how the paper evolved in response to those comments.
- Attach a summary for non-experts to research outputs
- Make raw data available as early as possible
- Use new technology to open research conferences to all
