Comments on: A Reply from Science

By: Evgeniy Tic

Evgeniy Tic — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:28:59 +0000

Science editors likely agree with the positions “these guys” take, and therefore are attempting to give them as much fudge room as possible.

By: Larry T

Larry T — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:22:26 +0000

The problem of archiving is a simple one to solve. The scientist is not eligible to receive another grant until he has completed the archiving required from the last one.

By: Bob Chesson

Bob Chesson — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:07:11 +0000

Sir:

There may be some form of legal option available. Research publicly funded should be under some form of public records requirement in that a legal request to produce (such as Freedom of Information Act in USA) must be followed. Perhaps a legal request might get those editor’s attention.

YMMV

By: Walter E. Wallis

Walter E. Wallis — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:47:26 +0000

One solution – strike Science from the approved list for government magazine subscriptions. Fiction is a personal expense.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:19:11 +0000

Science editors likely agree with the positions “these guys” take, and therefore are attempting to give them as much fudge room as possible. This tactic should backfire eventually, with public egg on all. Hopefully this is the type of conflict that will eventually result in a shakeup of the system.

Mark

By: kim

kim — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:26:05 +0000

Six brix plus six brix mayx a doxing.
======================================

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:07:26 +0000

I have no idea why Science doesn’t read the riot act to these guys. If I were a deputy editor of Science, I’d just tell these guys – here’s our policy, it’s black-and-white, comply with it to the letter. I’m tired of writing stupid letters protecting you; I’m not going to spend any more time protecting you; I don’t want to waste time arguing about it. Either archive your data or we’ll retract the article. In the present environment, it’s easy for them to clean up this sort of situation. Hanson knows that I’m going to write back to him with a detailed reply making him look bad. Then he’s going to have to spend more time and still look bad. The crazy thing is that he thinks that I’m the problem, when it’s Briffa and Osborn and Esper that are the problem.

By: per

per — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:32:26 +0000

I have to say that this stuff is delightful, and perfect as supplementary information to a submission to NAS, or to NSF if they ever choose to see if their data availability policies are upheld.

I think you have got your approach exactly right. A further formal letter pointing out what they have not provided, and making clear (1) that this is required by Science’s own policy (2) that this is essential information if the paper is to be replicated and shown to be reproducible (3) the necessary information for (2) is not provided ! It is of course salient to note that the cost of making such information available in an archive is trivial, and causes minimal disruption if archived at the time of paper submission.

yours
per

By: Reid

Reid — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:32:58 +0000

The climatology establishment fears that if they practice real science instead of political science a large percentage of the annual $5 billion pumped into their coffers will be cut. It’s all about money and power. The science is clearly secondary.

By: jae

jae — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:12:35 +0000

Until the climatology “establishment,” if they have one, adresses these concerns I cannot view “climatology” as a science. It is an affront to science and is properly classified as propaganda.