By: Thomas Kluyver

Thomas Kluyver — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:45:42 +0000

But surely, if you’re relying on “the assumption that more extensive experimental data/documentation may be available”, that assumption is itself trust.

Ultimately, unless you’re going to repeat every single experiment you ever read about, you have to place a certain amount of trust in other people. Even if you ask for the raw data, synthesising some would take only a few minutes with a computer.

The most high profile and controversial science will be replicated. After all, that’s where people are most likely to lie. But 99% of the time, we have to cite someone’s work and trust them (or the standards of the journal it’s published in).

By: MJC

MJC — Sun, 03 May 2009 23:53:20 +0000

It rather seems that “good old-fashioned trust” is not the way to run a scientific enterprise. We don’t “trust” that someone’s results are valid without some degree of documentation within a journal article itself, and the assumption that more extensive experimental data/documentation may be available. We don’t “trust” (or shouldn’t) that people have zero conflicts of interest, unless it is so declared (and even then it’s no sure thing). Journals certainly should take some steps in reforming authorship, including verifying possible conflicts of interest or lacks thereof. And we certainly *know* that honorary authorship happens, at the least, not uncommonly. Old-fashioned trust is great, but within science, nowhere is the phrase “trust, but verify” more pertinent.

Comments on: ‘Nature’ requires responsible party

By: Thomas Kluyver

By: MJC