In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:
Which brings up yet another question: My understanding is that the
information that Jones & company lost their original data came because
*one* scientific journal would not publish his article *without*
seeing the original data. Now, what exactly were all the other "peer
reviewers" reviewing if they didn't have the data? Grammar and
punctuation? Spelling?
I'd look he
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
Reviews would be on data adjusted in various ways "to take account of
variables in the way they were collected." It might be possible to
reverse the adjustment, but there would be no way to check.
I wonder what irreplaceable treasures I lost when I threw out my floppy
disc collection.
Stephen
The ability for *independent* researchers to reproduce the results is
one of the bedrock principles of *real* science. Without the original
data, and without access to his methodology, how is anyone else to
reproduce the results?
It's a problem for all researchers. In this case, new sources of
measurements will have to be explored.
Stephen