1. appliedstatistics
  2. Something I just wrote in a referee report: Post your numbers now, not later

Something I just wrote in a referee report: Post your numbers now, not later

By agelman on December 20, 2009.

The following is the last paragraph in a (positive) referee report I just wrote. It's relevant for lots of other articles too, I think, so I'll repeat it here:

Just as a side note, I recommend that the authors post their estimates immediately; I imagine their numbers will be picked up right away and be used by other researchers. First, this is good for the authors, as others will cite their work; second, these numbers should help advance research in the field; and, third, people will take the estimates seriously enough that, if there are problems, they will be uncovered. It makes sense to start this process now, so if anything bad comes up, it can be fixed before the paper gets published!

I have to admit that I'm typically too lazy to post my estimates right away; usually it doesn't happen until someone sends me an email request and then I put together a dataset. But, after writing the above paragraph, maybe I'll start following my own advice.

Tags
Uncategorized

More like this

Classic Edition: Hey, Ref!
Having made reference to the referee system in my post about a paper being accepted, this seems like a good point to dust off an old post about the peer review system in physics. Like many of the other Classic Edition posts I've put up here, this one dates from July of 2002. Apparently, I wrote a…
Best. Referee Report. EVER.: The Making of "Time-Resolved Studies of Ultracold Ionizing Collisions" (part 2)
I said in the previous post that the time-resolved collision paper was one of my favorite experiences in grad school, even the paper-writing process. It's not so much that the paper-writing process was all that exceptionally good-- it was the usual "paper torture," arguing over every single word in…
Data sharing is always good, right? Well, not quite...
Rare is the occasion when I disagree significantly with my collaborator Steve Novella, but this is one of those times. It's a measure of how much we agree on most things that, even in this case, I don't completely disagree with him. But, hey, it happens. I'm referring to Steve's post yesterday in…
Reproducibility and retracted papers.
From The New York Times: A chemistry professor at Columbia University who in March retracted two papers and part of a third published in a leading journal is now retracting four additional scientific papers. The retractions came after the experimental findings of the papers could not be reproduced…