Then arrange a permissions structure so that it is initially released only to reviewers, and released to everybody upon publication.
That would only take care of things going forward, but once the structure is established it might be possible to secure outside funding for porting "back issues."
The record will, of course, be incomplete - some data will have been lost, some code will have been modified beyond retrieval. But it's a step in the right direction.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
2nd step: Do a evaluation of past performance of predicative quantitative science. While some predictions are for the future, some can already be verified:
4th step: Re assessment of previous publications by scientists that are non-peer. An example: In malaria lots of maths is used for modeling. Other people using maths as a tool (but not in malaria) could read and give an opinion on the maths. It is very difficult for peers to point out errors post-publication... without creating enemies.
I can dream.
In the mean time, things like this "email issue" will probably happen in the future, putting the credibility of current scientists where it deserves to be.
The current trend, however, is that science journals make full transparency a prerequisite for publication, and data will then only be available through science journals access. Hence increasing their dominance on science publications.
Smart institutions hopefully will move ahead with structures like the one you propose.
Ultra-competition, style over substance, egotistic posturing over actual discovery are not necessarily inherently scientific. They're certainly features of academia, but I'm not convinced their effects can't be minimised to the point where they're no longer a key driver of the culture.
As for peer review and data sharing - from the climate denialist point of view, this is missing the point. Even if the scientific community agreed consistently, peer reviewed all models, shared data religiously, and created a clear consensus, the denialists would find one tenured kook and plaster them all over the front pages and the wacko blogs to 'disprove' the scientists.
This is not about evidence or honesty, it's about story-telling and persuasion.
There are certainly things scientists could do, but in terms of political rather than scientific effectiveness, improved transparency comes pretty low on the list.
If you have to release your data after the "preliminary investigation report" there'd be an incentive to delay publishing until you have a paper that you think will actually be cited by anybody outside your own department and close friends.
If universities have to make all data completely public, corporate attempts to hide, fabricate or spin results would be in direct conflict with the prestige of the participating scientists. Which is a rather more compelling incentive to refrain from participating in a project than vague concerns about academic ethics.
So you really have to have a group of Big Dicks who have both enough prestige to demand transparency and enough suitably inventive and painful punishments for the people who fail to comply with that demand.
This is an area where the European Union could do a lot of good. If the EU were to demand that all publicly funded research must be published in journals that demand full disclosure (to the general public, not just to the journal), the ripples would be felt worldwide.
