But there's also ***so much data*** sitting in labs from ten years ago that could help other labs avoid repeating the same experiments and basically throwing money away ***now***. You've never looked at an 80s Brain Research paper and really wished you just had the raw data?
-
-
Unless I am missing something, which is very possible, what is a case in which it's OK to demand (not kindly ask but demand!) a change in formats as if the data collector has made a huge error?
-
But that is a completely different matter. I think it should suffice that the data is properly labelled, designs identified, and operations declared. My view.
-
Yes, there should always be meta data. Are we talking about meta data or data formats? Different things.
-
*metadata
-
Documentation and metadata are really important, although demands should be phrased kindly and probably dialed back to questions since it's always possible the information is somewhere not yet found by the more data parasitic person.
-
This is something a peer reviewer should be catching anyway, so I would question how recent datasets like this (w/o metadata/docs) get past PR. More focus on training PhD students & postdocs to review open science is needed and journals should explain how to catch such omissions!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.