When a researcher and publisher withholds information then ignores requests -- what’s the recourse? How can science have integrity? (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by plantteacher@mander.xyz to c/scicomm@mander.xyz

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The ACM.org website published the work of a team at Carnegie Mellon (#CMU) which was said to include source code. Then the code was omitted from the attached ZIP file, which only contained another copy of the paper. I asked the lead researcher (a prof) for the code and was ignored. Also asked the other researchers (apparently students), who also ignored the request. The code would have made it possible to reproduce the research and verify it. ACM ~~also ignored my request and~~ also neglected to fix the misinfo (the claim on the page that source code is available). Correction: ACM replied and tried to find the missing code but then just gave up.

It seems like this should taint the research in some way. Why don’t they want people reproducing the research? If the idea is that scientific research is “peer reviewed” for integrity, it seems like a façade if reviewers don’t have a voice. Or is there some kind of 3rd party who would call this out?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 weeks ago

Provide a link to the paper

[-] plantteacher@mander.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2911988

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

its from 2016. I doubt they have the code anymore. 🤷

[-] plantteacher@mander.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago

They could try to say that but I doubt people would believe it.

Who throws away their own code particularly when it’s not junky commercial code but code their heart and soul was behind on a non-profit project? I keep my old code around if anything just to be able to search it to re-teach myself coding and design tips I forgot about. This code backs their research which they may need to refer to when a prospective employer asks for detail on how they executed the study.