“There are far more cases of authors who gained notoriety and long citation counts from making data public early then there are of authors who jealously guarded data so they would get credit for the magic regression that would appear 5 or more years after data collection.”
Link, or GTFO, Cochrane!
“And any paper that uses confidential proprietory data is a reject for me. ” What a joke！
Nowadays it is extremely hard to publish a paper without some special data! JF almost desk rejects papers that use only Compustata datasets.
Not to mention I know many cases that referrers steal ideas from the authors! I know a guy's paper had 4 rounds of R&R for almost two years and suddenly he found a competing paper came out and published earlier than him. The NDA is bullshxxt since you can never check it is fully followed.
GTFO, I will never share any data or codes until my paper gets accepted. If you ask for it during review process, I will retract my paper.
Exactly
“And any paper that uses confidential proprietory data is a reject for me. ” What a joke！
Nowadays it is extremely hard to publish a paper without some special data! JF almost desk rejects papers that use only Compustata datasets.
Not to mention I know many cases that referrers steal ideas from the authors! I know a guy's paper had 4 rounds of R&R for almost two years and suddenly he found a competing paper came out and published earlier than him. The NDA is bullshxxt since you can never check it is fully followed.
GTFO, I will never share any data or codes until my paper gets accepted. If you ask for it during review process, I will retract my paper.
Yeah, I don’t get the proprietary data vigilante types.
Here’s my solution, as someone who’s purchased proprietary data that I can’t release (even to a referee) - the company I got it from was very nervous about knowing every person who ever touched it.
In all papers, you are assuming various things about the good faith of the authors. If the editor has a question about the data, I can fly to his city and let him see that the code runs and see that the data exists, etc. I can’t turn over the whole set for days at a time, but we can go through things. He can look through the data set. Want to invite the referee post-acceptance? Make it a party.
There are reasonable ways to prove data is real. There aren’t legitimate reasons to assume everyone who uses proprietary data is running a scam.
Get over it.
“And any paper that uses confidential proprietory data is a reject for me. ” What a joke！
Nowadays it is extremely hard to publish a paper without some special data! JF almost desk rejects papers that use only Compustata datasets.
Not to mention I know many cases that referrers steal ideas from the authors! I know a guy's paper had 4 rounds of R&R for almost two years and suddenly he found a competing paper came out and published earlier than him. The NDA is bullshxxt since you can never check it is fully followed.
GTFO, I will never share any data or codes until my paper gets accepted. If you ask for it during review process, I will retract my paper.
This
I have a referee report and a good idea about the identity of one of the reviewers who is my enemy. The journal does not require data for submission or publication, but the a-hole is requesting the data. I have spent years collecting the data and will not release my data to him, sorry.
Says the corrupt referee who wants to take someone else’s data under the guise of professional conduct.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you guys don’t even have any data or code you just type up tables and manually add stars.
You can encrypt the data and still allow the code to run, I don’t care about your data I have my own which I am happy to provide in encrypted form to you.
Flip side: I've always included a code archive in the submission. As far as I can tell nobody ever looks at it.This sounds like a bad idea. Even if you haven't made any mistakes letting the refs looks through all your do files and data seems like it could open a Pandora's box of new criticisms. This surely outweighs any reputational benefits of "transparency."
Maybe, but three papers now and nobody has mentioned it a single time. It could be that I work in R.
You know that you're dealing with a true reg monkey when they use the term "do file" instead of "code".
Totally unworkable in the vast majority of cases.
Says the corrupt referee who wants to take someone else’s data under the guise of professional conduct.I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you guys don’t even have any data or code you just type up tables and manually add stars.
You can encrypt the data and still allow the code to run, I don’t care about your data I have my own which I am happy to provide in encrypted form to you.
Flip side: I've always included a code archive in the submission. As far as I can tell nobody ever looks at it.
This sounds like a bad idea. Even if you haven't made any mistakes letting the refs looks through all your do files and data seems like it could open a Pandora's box of new criticisms. This surely outweighs any reputational benefits of "transparency."
Maybe, but three papers now and nobody has mentioned it a single time. It could be that I work in R.
You know that you're dealing with a true reg monkey when they use the term "do file" instead of "code".
Indeed the debate here is largely part of the R vs Stata wars, the Stata guys should read Hadley’s piece on managing secrets, their objections don’t really arise if they are using R to its full potential, but the mention of .do filed says it all.
Totally unworkable in the vast majority of cases.
Says the corrupt referee who wants to take someone else’s data under the guise of professional conduct.I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you guys don’t even have any data or code you just type up tables and manually add stars.
You can encrypt the data and still allow the code to run, I don’t care about your data I have my own which I am happy to provide in encrypted form to you.
Not really.
“And any paper that uses confidential proprietory data is a reject for me. ” What a joke！
Nowadays it is extremely hard to publish a paper without some special data! JF almost desk rejects papers that use only Compustata datasets.
Not to mention I know many cases that referrers steal ideas from the authors! I know a guy's paper had 4 rounds of R&R for almost two years and suddenly he found a competing paper came out and published earlier than him. The NDA is bullshxxt since you can never check it is fully followed.
GTFO, I will never share any data or codes until my paper gets accepted. If you ask for it during review process, I will retract my paper.
I’m ok with you retracting your paper.
Tell us more
Link please.
Indeed the debate here is largely part of the R vs Stata wars, the Stata guys should read Hadley’s piece on managing secrets, their objections don’t really arise if they are using R to its full potential, but the mention of .do filed says it all.