Letter to Nature, 1998.

Perhaps the single most important tenet of science is that nothing is taken for granted, and that everything can, and should, be questioned. But questioning of scientific statements can only be achieved if they are enunciated in sufficient detail that they can be evaluated rationally. As much as ever, scientists rely on short publications, such as those of Nature, to keep abreast of the literature. Space constraints in such publications, however, often force authors to reduce manuscripts to such a bare minimum that essential information is omitted, leaving novel, statements unreferenced and unexplained. This often impairs readability and comprehensibility. But even more importantly, it leaves those statements uncontestable. Almost irrefutable. Lack of detail hinders repeatability, one of the cornerstones of science. Simply put, unexplained procedures just slow the advancement of science. Fortunately, however, technology provides a simple solution that yesterday's media could not afford: the supplementary information that Nature posts on the World Wide Web provides an inexpensive and universally available complement to letters and articles, providing a forum for explanations that could not be included in the printed version. Such notes can include detailed procedures and controls, raw data in the cases where only processed results are shown, and even code for computer programs used. Unfortunately, though, this resource is being underutilized, and it is not uncommon to find statements such as 'simulations show that…' with no further explanation. In an age when science is funded by the public, accelerating its advancement is the least we scientists can do to keep it popular. It will not escape the attention of editors and reviewers alike that they can play as much a role in accomplishing this as authors do.

Alex Bäcker

 Create your own free wiki!Help Add to Del.ici.ous Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to fUrl Add to SpurlPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS