It's like saying: Being on fire is not nice, but if we pour too much water on you you might drown. The solution is to have the right amount of transparency. Signing should be voluntary. Sharing data and code should be required, otherwise people who do not give a shit will never do it.
I am in for publishing data and code. But transparency itself is a broad and abstract concept that can be interpreted very differently. I think we are better off by just saying what we actually mean.
You seem to want to criticize something, but then also have nothing to actually say. The original post linked to a paper with a super clear abstract. Open data, preregistration, transparent methods. You have no arguments against this. The authors say what they mean. What are you trying to do here?
You either seem to try to put words in someone I someone else's mouth just to be able to criticize those words, or you are creating a strawmen. Neither seem particularly high quality scholarship or worth my time. Shall we just go back to work to make science better?
Comments