[OpenGeoscience] 3/4 of the results published by Science are not reproducible

[Luí­s Moreira de Sousa]

Dear all,

an article just published assessing the reproducibility of results reported in the Science magazine: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2584

The conclusions are pretty damning; from the abstract:

We chose a random sample of 204 scientific papers published in the journal Science after the implementation of their policy in February 2011. We found that we were able to obtain artifacts from 44% of our sample and were able to reproduce the findings for 26%.

Some of the authors inquired show an incredible sense of entitlement over the code and data they create (which in most cases are products of public funding). Allied to this is an unexplainable contempt towards public scrutiny. This is just terrible, with such practices, scientists themselves are justifying public mistrust on Science.

If it is not Open it is not science, it is quackery.

Regards.

--
Luís Moreira de Sousa
Bowlespark 8
6701 DN Wageningen
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 628 544 755
Email: luis.de.sousa at protonmail.ch
RingID: ring:7ca91d83f4f9dec82fec9f1144b8e5c1ef2a110c
URL: https://ldesousa.github.io
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/opengeoscience/attachments/20180316/caab384e/attachment.html>