The Scientist reports on the failure of many scientific papers to include enough information to allow others to replicate the results.
Reproducibility is a hallmark of good science. However, despite the fact that most scientific journals require authors to list the resources used in their experiments, almost half of the papers examined in a new study failed to specify all of the items needed to replicate the findings. The study was published Thursday (September 5) in the journal PeerJ.
From the looks of it, the papers studied were mainly in the life sciences, but this is clearly just as much an issue for climatology. Unless you are an scientivist, of course, in which case replication means being able to reach vaguely similar results using different, but equally obscure methods.