Doesn’t that prove my point? I know people post their artefacts. I often review them. Not sure what you’re trying to say?

Reproducing that paper will be very difficult even though all the information is out there. There is a world of science outside of data processing.

I think most people who have worked in science long enough realize that publications are not even minimum-viable: they often omit absolutely necessary information. Sometimes this is intentional, but most of the time, it's just assumed that the reproducer is working in a world-class lab and gets advice/help to implement state-of-the-art work.

> There is a world of science outside of data processing.

Yes, but that's documented in lab books and procedure documents. Or at least it should be! If it isn't, how are they able to explain their own research? And those can be open sourced.

The ethos of documenting and describing research in detailed technical publications has been around for a very long time. That supplemental data I referenced has a phenomenal amount of detail and is only one example. They have done as good a job of open sourcing as is possible. Having read other papers from those lab chiefs (Zare, Houk, Baran, Grubbs, Stoltz) I know that they are scrupulous about the detail they publish.

Even so, very few people will be able to replicate that work outside without a very well funded laboratory or collaboration of their own. Lab notebooks contain a vast amount of tangential or irrelevant data which are distilled into the publication. What good is a process document for obtaining an x-ray structure if the diffractometer costs a fortune and is a shared departmental or even national resource? In your example, how deep does the bill of materials go? Is it sufficient to state that one needs a Bruker FTIR or Coherent optical parametric oscillator or do those have to be decomposed into the lowest-level components?

> Even so, very few people will be able to replicate that work outside without a very well funded laboratory or collaboration of their own.

That's not a reason to not be open about it!

> What good is a process document for obtaining an x-ray structure if the diffractometer costs a fortune and is a shared departmental or even national resource?

I think it's inherently good! Even if you think can't use it right now, it's good to put it all out there for people looking and into the archives to keep it for the future.

> In your example, how deep does the bill of materials go?

Well if bills of materials are available for your components themselves then you don't need to break them down yourself.

> That's not a reason to not be open about it!

We're talking past each other. Openness in methods has been around in the physical and biological sciences for a very long time.

> Well if bills of materials are available for your components themselves then you don't need to break them down yourself.

Reverse engineering a piece of purchased equipment to publish its BoM now becomes a required part of scientific publication? Or, expecting a manufacturer to provide it and authorize it for general release? I don't think that's realistic.

> We're talking past each other. Openness in methods has been around in the physical and biological sciences for a very long time.

You're listing a lot of reasons why you think it's not worth it!

> Reverse engineering a piece of purchased equipment to publish its BoM now becomes a required part of scientific publication?

No, you mis-read me. I said if it's an existing piece of equipment just say you used that piece of equipment.

@chrisseaton: Can't reply at the correct indentation level but

> You're listing a lot of reasons why you think it's not worth it!

No, I am saying that it is not a new concept. I am all for it and tried to hew to that standard in the papers I've written.

And since I can't reply at the correct level, I'll take that as a hint that the site doesn't really want this and stop here.

Thanks for the discussion.