@prefix epid: .
@prefix dc: .
@prefix geo: .
@prefix bibo: .
@prefix epx: .
@prefix owl: .
@prefix void: .
@prefix event: .
@prefix skos: .
@prefix xsd: .
@prefix cc: .
@prefix ep: .
@prefix foaf: .
@prefix rdf: .
@prefix rdfs: .
@prefix eprel: .
@prefix dct: .
<>
foaf:primaryTopic ;
rdfs:comment "The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license."^^xsd:string .
rdfs:label "ReproducibleResearch.pdf"^^xsd:string .
rdfs:label "lightbox.jpg"^^xsd:string .
rdfs:label "preview.jpg"^^xsd:string .
rdfs:label "medium.jpg"^^xsd:string .
rdfs:label "small.jpg"^^xsd:string .
rdfs:label "indexcodes.txt"^^xsd:string .
dc:format "text/html";
dc:title "HTML Summary of #8675 \n\nReproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion\n\n";
foaf:primaryTopic .
dct:hasPart ;
ep:hasFile ;
rdf:type bibo:Document,
ep:Document;
rdfs:label "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion (PDF)"^^xsd:string .
dct:hasPart ;
ep:hasFile ;
eprel:isVersionOf ;
eprel:isVolatileVersionOf ;
eprel:islightboxThumbnailVersionOf ;
rdf:type ep:Document;
rdfs:label "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion (Other)"^^xsd:string .
dct:hasPart ;
ep:hasFile ;
eprel:isVersionOf ;
eprel:isVolatileVersionOf ;
eprel:ispreviewThumbnailVersionOf ;
rdf:type ep:Document;
rdfs:label "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion (Other)"^^xsd:string .
dct:hasPart ;
ep:hasFile ;
eprel:isVersionOf ;
eprel:isVolatileVersionOf ;
eprel:ismediumThumbnailVersionOf ;
rdf:type ep:Document;
rdfs:label "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion (Other)"^^xsd:string .
dct:hasPart ;
ep:hasFile ;
eprel:isVersionOf ;
eprel:isVolatileVersionOf ;
eprel:issmallThumbnailVersionOf ;
rdf:type ep:Document;
rdfs:label "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion (Other)"^^xsd:string .
dct:hasPart ;
ep:hasFile ;
eprel:isIndexCodesVersionOf ;
eprel:isVersionOf ;
eprel:isVolatileVersionOf ;
rdf:type ep:Document;
rdfs:label "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion (Other)"^^xsd:string .
rdf:_1 .
bibo:abstract " Reproducible Research, the de facto title of a growing movement\r\n within many scientific fields, would require the code, used to\r\n generate the experimental results, be published along with any\r\n paper. Probably the most compelling argument for this is that it is\r\n simply following good scientific practice, established over the\r\n years by the greats of science. It is further claimed that\r\n misconduct is causing a growing crisis of confidence in science.\r\n That, without this requirement being enforced, science would\r\n inevitably fall into disrepute. This viewpoint is becoming\r\n ubiquitous but here I offer a dissenting opinion. I contend that\r\n the consequences are somewhat overstated. Misconduct is far from\r\n solely a recent phenomenon; science has succeeded despite it.\r\n Further, I would argue that the problem of public trust is more to\r\n do with other factors. I would also contend that the effort\r\n necessary to meet the movement's aims, and the general attitude it\r\n engenders, would not serve any of the research disciplines well."^^xsd:string;
bibo:authorList ;
bibo:status ,
;
dct:creator ;
dct:date "2012-09-21";
dct:isPartOf ;
dct:subject ,
;
dct:title "Reproducible Research: a Dissenting Opinion"^^xsd:string;
ep:hasDocument ,
,
,
,
,
;
rdf:type bibo:Article,
ep:EPrint,
ep:OtherEPrint;
rdfs:seeAlso .
rdf:type skos:Concept;
skos:prefLabel "Artificial Intelligence" .
rdf:type skos:Concept;
skos:prefLabel "Machine Learning" .
foaf:familyName "Drummond"^^xsd:string;
foaf:givenName "Chris"^^xsd:string;
foaf:name "Chris Drummond"^^xsd:string;
rdf:type foaf:Person .