This article is part of the network’s archive of useful research information. This article is closed to new comments due to inactivity. We welcome new content which can be done by submitting an article for review or take part in discussions in an open topic or submit a blog post to take your discussions online.


Devon Brewer and colleagues are correct in pointing out that researchers fear that data they have generated might be manipulated by secondary analysts in ways that contradict their own conclusions. This is precisely why the draft code of conduct to which we refer commits secondary analysts to publish their own detailed methods, and any code used to transform, manipulate, analyse, or interpret datasets. We agree that this sort of transparency in science will increase public trust and reduce the deliberate manipulation of data to score political, financial, or ideological points.

Link to access full article:

Also By

Elizabeth Pisani, James Whitworth, Basia Zaba, Carla AbouZahr


Data Sharing  


archive  data sharing