Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Well, people that operate in secrecy and say that they are "enlightening" others deserve this...

If the work is so good, so reliable why not making it FULLY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE? Wasn't it payed with public funds?

I mean, get the source code out for public inspection. Parameters, fitting, etc...

Lets shed some light on the inner workings of the models.

I am just advocating for public scrutiny of what they do.

Note that in many cases, these projects even fail peer-scrutiny as the code, procedures are not made available for peer-review. And even if it was, it would be impossible for a couple/half-a-dozen reviewers to understand the model implementation. So full openess would allow complete peer-review (other peers than only journal reviewers) and public scrutiny.

Who is afraid of that?

by t-------------- on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 at 07:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series