Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yet nature forces you to provide p values and n count for everything you can in any figure as if that's enough to guarantee significance of results.

We need to start publishing with transparent and reproducible code from raw data to figure. Show me the data and let me make my own conclusions.

It's not too hard,I'm writing my phd thesis and every figure is produced from scratch and placed in the final document by a compilation script. My jupyter notebooks are then compiled in pdf and attached in the thesis document as well. Isn't this a better way of doing the "methods" section?



I read that as mother nature forces p-values and was, huh? You mean the journal, of course.


This doesn't work for data gathered on humans, which has to be kept private.

Unless you have implemented some new method, I don't see why the code would be of any interest.


Because instead of vaguely describing what I did I can show you exactly what I did.

Instead of saying "we normalized the counts", I can show you EXACTLY what that was that I did.

If I can't see your code I don't trust you.

I think it's cleaner, more honest, more reproducible, and it helps teach younger researchers.

ps. Huge amounts of "human" data are normally public and available for anyone to work with, it's only specific subsets that need to be private.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: