Two recent articles call for an openness revolution in science: one on GigaOM and the other in the Wall Street Journal. But theyâ€™ve got it all wrong. These folks are missing that the process of scientific discovery is not, at its core, an open process. It only becomes an open process at the point of publication.
I am not necessarily in favor of greater openness during the process of scientific collaboration. I am however necessarily in favor of openness in communication of the discoveries at the time of publication. Publication is the point at which authors feel their work is ready for public presentation and scrutiny (that traditional publication does not actually give the public access to new scientific knowledge is a tragedy and of course we should have Open Access). We even have a standard for the level of openness required at the time of scientific publication: reproducibility. This concept has been part of the scientific method since it was instigated by Robert Boyle in the 1660â€™s: communicate sufficient information such that another researcher in the field can replicate your work, given appropriate tools and equipment.
If weâ€™ve already been doing this for hundreds of years whatâ€™s the big deal now? Leaving aside the question of whether or not published scientific findings have actually been reproducible over the last few hundred years (for work on this question see e.g. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice by Harry Collins), science, like many other areas of modern life, is being transformed by the computer. It is now tough to find any empirical scientific research not touched by the computer in some way, from simply storing and analyzing records to the radical transformation of scientific inquiry through massive multicore simulations of physical systems (see e.g. The Dynamics of Plate Tectonics and Mantle Flow: From Local to Global Scales).
This, combined with the facilitation of digital communication we call the Internet, is an enormous opportunity for scientific advancement. Not because we can collaborate or share our work pre-publication as the articles assert â€“ all of which we can do, if we like â€“ but because computational research captures far more of the tacit knowledge involved in replicating a scientific experiment that ever before, making our science potentially more verifiable. The code and data another scientist believes replicates his or her experiments can capture all digital manipulations of the data, which now comprise much of the scientific discovery process. Commonly used techniques, such as the simulations carried out in papers included in sparselab.stanford.edu (see e.g â€œBreakdown Point of Model Selection when the Number of Variables Exceeds the Number of Observationsâ€ or any of the SparseLab papers), can now be replicated by downloading the short scripts we included with publication (see e.g. Reproducible Research in Computational Harmonic Analysis). This is a far cry from Boyleâ€™s physical experiments with the air pump, and Iâ€™d argue one with enormously lower levels of tacit knowledge to communicate that we’re not capitalizing on today.
Computational experiments are complex. Without communicating the data and code that generated the result it is nearly impossible to understand what was done. My thesis advisor famously paraphrased this idea, â€œAn article about computational science in a scientiï¬c publication is not the scholarship itself, it is merely advertising of the scholarship. The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment and the complete set of instructions which generated the ï¬gures.â€
It is simply wrong to assert that science has not adopted computational tools, as the GigoOM article does when it says â€œthere is another world that makes these industries [traditional media players such as newspapers, magazines and book publishers] look like the most enthusiastic of early adopters [of technological progress]: namely, academic research.â€ Everywhere you look computation is emerging as central to the scientific method. What needs to happen is a resolution of the credibility crisis in computational science resulting from this enthusiastic technological adoption: we need to establish the routine inclusion of the data and code with publication, such that the results can be conveniently replicated and verified. Many new efforts to help data and code sharing are documented here, from workflow tracking to code portability to unique identifiers that permit the regeneration of results in the cloud.
This is an imperative issue, most of our published computational results today are unverified and unverifiable (I have written on this extensively, as have many others). The emphasis on the process of creative problem solving as the bottleneck in scientific discovery is misplaced. Scientific innovation is inherently creative â€“ perhaps more collaborative tools that permit openness will encourage greater innovation. Or perhaps it is the case, as Paul Graham has pointed out in another context, that innovative thinking is largely a solitary act. What is clear is that it is of primary importance to establish publication practices that facilitate the replication and verification of results by including data and code, and not to confound these two issues.