Premium
Is the drive for reproducible science having a detrimental effect on what is published?
Author(s) -
Drummond Chris
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
learned publishing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.06
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1741-4857
pISSN - 0953-1513
DOI - 10.1002/leap.1224
Subject(s) - novelty , criticism , movement (music) , computer science , epistemology , process (computing) , publishing , scientific progress , engineering ethics , data science , political science , psychology , law , philosophy , social psychology , aesthetics , operating system , engineering
This paper is a critique of the part played by the reproducible research movement within the scientific community. In particular, it raises concerns about the strong influence the movement is having on which papers are published. The primary effect is through changes to the peer review process. These not only require that the data and software used to generate the reported results be part of the review but also that the novelty criterion should be deprecated. This paper questions a central tenet of the movement, the idea of a single, well‐defined, and iterative scientific method. Philosophers, historians of science, and scientists alike have argued extensively against the idea of a single method. Some going as far as to suggest that there are as many methods as scientists. I am convinced that there are broad, high‐level ideas that bind scientists together. Yet, anything more sharply delineated that could reasonably be entitled a scientific method is not logically or historically justified. If this criticism is accepted, then changes to the peer review process are not warranted. Furthermore, I would contend that the influence the reproducible research movement is having on the publishing of papers, and elsewhere, should be considerably curtailed.