Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by dekhn on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @08:06PM
(#41642306)
At least in my own mental model of publishing a paper (I've published only a few), I'd want my coauthors to stick hot pokers in my if I made a mistake or got careless. But then, my entire thesis was driven by a reproducible Makefile that downloaded the latest results from a supercomputer, re-ran the whole analysis, and wrote the latex necessary (at least partly to avoid making trivial mistakes). It was clear everything I was doing was just getting in the way of publishing high prestige papers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by robwwilliams on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @11:20PM
(#41643387)
All too easy to understand your situation. NIH is finally but slowly waking up and is imposing more “onerous” (aka: essential and correct) data management and sharing (DMS) document. Every grant applicant now submits following these guidelines:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-24-1...
Unfortunately, not all NIH institutes understand how to evaluate and moderate this key new policy. Oddly enough the peer reviewers do NOT have access to DMS plans as of this year.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by IG_Semmelweiss on Wednesday September 25, 2024 @04:18AM
(#41645033)
Is this a process whereby the researcher is forced to submit the thesis (null, etc) of the research, ahead of the study and its findings?
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
by robwwilliams on Wednesday September 25, 2024 @02:22PM
(#41650345)
I think you are referring to clinical trial registration. Different idea and process (a QA-like step).
The NIH DMS mandates are about the data generated by an award.