Peer review e Wikipedia

La normale peer review accademica è deterministica, mentre l”approccio wikipediano è probabilistico. È la solita differenza fra il modello a cattedrale e il modello a bazaar (testo originale).

Mandatory data sharing is not (always) caring

But what can reviewers and editors do?

Mandatory data archiving is not (always) caring

Through twitter, Michael Hoffman shared a link to an interesting 2012 paper: 56% of…

Very nice article.

Reproducibility will be our Achilles heel until we have clear incentives for replicating data. That’s sad, because it is one of the main aspects separating science from everything else.

TOP was a good initiative, however the community needs to think of systematic ways to tackle…

Open peer review: a note from a physicist

We get more of what we reward, and less of what we punish.

I’d like to take note of this post by Sabine Hossenfelder, “Open peer review and its discontents”. She reflects on a growing cultural…

> Despite never having actually seen these data for themselves, [scientists] have complete faith in such findings.

You’re not wrong, but this is a mistake. Experiments, whether they’re performed by us or somebody else, should update our beliefs. These beliefs themselves must carry some measure of uncertainty. There’s no…

Neuroskeptic: science hipster.

Is the boiling point of water 100 C?

Did you go try it out just now with a pot and a candy thermometer? If you did it was probably a little lower, since few people read blogs on boats at sea level.

Yeah Eamon, but you’re a Bayesian! The way you’d argue this to a Bayesian is “NS has a strong prior. His job is to use it to help people with weak priors make better updates.” My objection to NS is that he’s signaling that strong prior by saying says “oh this is all bullshit.” That’s meant to signal that this new piece of information should cause a…