Adventures of a multidimensional freak

This is Juan Julián Merelo Guervós English-language blog. He teaches computer science at the University of Granada, in southern Spain. Come back here to read about politics, technology, with a new twist

Latest comments

  • seoexpert en About conference poster design and defense
  • seoexpert en Spanish blogosphere in Wired
  • ali en Cloning part of a local repository
  • Day Night Hire en Spanish blogosphere in Wired
  • Day Night Hire en About conference poster design and defense
  • Day Night Hire en PPSN: On quality of papers and so forth
  • John S. McGill en Compute the number of cites in Google Citations
  • Sandra P. Smith en Nielsen on blog power laws
  • adamsnow en What is informal distributed evolutionary computation?
  • Lucille F. Parham en Nielsen on blog power laws
  • Blogs Out There

    Nelson Minar's Blog
    Jeremy Zawodny's Blog
    Complexes, Carlos Gershenson's blog
    IlliGAL, Genetic Algorithms blog
    Blogging in the wind, Víctor R. Ruiz's blog

    Atalaya, my Spanish language blog
    Geneura@Wordpress, our research group's blog.
    My home page

    Old stories

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

    Inicio > Historias > Truth and falsehood in Science

    Truth and falsehood in Science

    Although it would be a bit dangerous to extend those conclusions to the vast realm of published scientific literature, the book How Experts Fail includes a chapter questioning whether most published research findings are false. It quotes a study made by a medical researcher (which we should assume he's read) that studied several of the most referenced papers in medicine, and found that many had been either superseded, not proved independently , or their published results mentioned effects much stronger than seen afterwards.
    Besides, it points to the lack of basic statistical or general mathematical skills among scientists. Which is basically true, at least in my generation; nowadays it's much more difficult to get a paper published without proper statistical analysis.
    There is a basic problem: there's not much to gain in replicating other's results. If you publish a paper saying "That guy who published that algorithm is right", it will be rejected on the basis that there's no original content; besides, people don't usually publish datasets and code used for papers; usually, you can grab it by requesting it, but nobody's sure it's the exact same version.
    Since we live in this connected world, and virtually all papers are sooner or later online, my opinion is that it should be compulsory to upload code and data you used for published results, so that anybody can check it. Or build on it. My group, and my own code, is uploaded to a publicly available repository while it's being worked on (for instance, code for computing an author's h- and g-index). I guess it will happen sooner or later, anyways, as soon as the publishing house's infrastructure is prepared for it.

    2007-12-16 11:07 | 5 Comment(s) | Filed in Just_A_Scientist

    Referencias (TrackBacks)

    URL de trackback de esta historia


    De: Heimy Fecha: 2007-12-16 18:08

    I'd say that you should publish some kind of checksum (eg. MD5) along with the URL to your data so that everybody can be sure that the dataset they're downloading a dataset that has not been modified after your paper was published.

    De: JJ Fecha: 2007-12-16 18:15

    That would probably be a good idea. Version control systems would also help.

    De: Algernon Fecha: 2007-12-16 18:19

    [OT] The Geneura@Wordpress link doesn't work. You should change it to ".com"

    De: JJ Fecha: 2007-12-16 19:14

    Thanks... I don't know whether I should be worried nobody's noticed it before.

    De: run 3 Fecha: 2018-10-26 10:27

    "That guy who published that algorithm is right"

    Dirección IP: (f96bdf48eb)
    ¿Cuánto es: diez mil + uno?

    © 2002 - 2008 jmerelo
    Powered by Blogalia