Providing access to the data is a prerequisite for replication of empirical analysis. Unfortunately, this access is not always granted to everyone (see here, and here). There is evidence that some of this may be due to concerns about requestors’…
Read MoreIn a recent interview on Retraction Watch, Andrew Gelman reveals that what keeps him up at night isn’t scientific fraud, it’s “the sheer number of unreliable studies — uncorrected, unretracted — that have littered the literature.” He then goes on…
Read More[From the Retraction Watch website] “In January 2014, Psychological Science began rewarding digital badges to authors who committed to open science practices such as sharing data and materials. A study published today in PLOS Biology looks at whether publicizing such behavior helps encourage others to…
Read MoreFROM THE ARTICLE: “Every year hundreds of millions of children in the developing world are given deworming tablets, whether they have worms or not….This “deworm everybody” approach has been driven by a single, hugely influential trial published in 2004 by…
Read MoreFROM THE ORIGINAL BLOG: “A recent study sent data requests to 200 authors of economics articles where it was stated ‘data available upon request’. Most of the authors refused.” Is this scientific misconduct? If so, what should be done about it? To…
Read More