We have not insisted on the deposition of some raw datasets (eg brain imaging data) because we accept that such deposition can undermine the originators' priority in generating research results. This can be a controversial issue, and we remain ready to review such principles, but as stated above, for pragmatic reasons, the communities rather than journals are ultimately the determinants of our policies.Remember Yamal? and Bernie Mac's (well he IS a comedian) constant demands for raw datasets?
As for software, the principle we adopt is that the code need only be supplied when a new program is the kernel of the paper's advance, and otherwise we require the algorithm to be made available.and hows about those "programs" when the algorithms were published?
Yes, Eli is stirring the pot
Maybe it's just obvious ...
ReplyDeleteI read it and thought, "how sensible".
You were expecting McI and friends to show up here shouting "whitewash!" "scandal!" "rules have been soften to protect The Team!" or sumthin'?
Well. . .:) Eyeballs, gotta get eyeballs.
ReplyDeleteSpeking with eyeballs
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html
Trying to get the rabett a roal in thze moviz?
Do any of McI et al eyeball this blog? I thought the only denier we got was Atom/birdbrain/celery eater. From what I can piece together from his incoherence, he's a Christian libertarian New World Order conspiracy nut. The denialist trend in that bunch is because international efforts to combat AGW would strengthen the world government; this is bad; therefore AGW must be false at best and part of the conspiracy at worst. Oh, also all scientists and other intellectuals are poopyheads, partly because they don't take this conspiracy seriously. This is a very different track than McI and friends. Crazy train, not gravy train.
ReplyDelete"Do any of McI et al eyeball this blog?"
ReplyDeleteI doubt they do, I was joking ... maybe. I don't read CA, either. But I bet that if someone hauls out this quote the next time McI foams at the mouth because "Nature isn't following it's own procedure because it didn't make so-and-so climate scientist publish the source to his code!!!!!" that the reaction's going to be pretty much as I stated.
Well, actually yeah, but who knows the eyeballs behind the visits. Over some undefined period Sitemeter has it that
ReplyDelete322 realclimate.org 8.1%
264 google.com 6.6%
108 scienceblogs.com 2.7%
99 rabett.blogspot.com 2.5%
72 climateaudit.org 1.8%
56 moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com 1.4%
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou know, when anonymous, insipid, ignorant liars single (or double) you out by nym, you must be doing something right. Kinda makes ya feel warm all over.
ReplyDeleteBlame it all on Man-made-Global-Warming. It seems to be your theme...
ReplyDeleteI really don't think we can blame stupidity or craziness on AGW.
ReplyDeleteThey Blame it All on Global Warming
ReplyDeleteJust remember that "your guy", Mike Mann, publically said he did not want to give the ALGORITHM for his paper out. Think how that would fly in isotope calculations or something, meester super chemistry perfesser.
ReplyDelete