Inviting someone to your house is a big deal, socially. At least in the sense that the invitee needs to feel comfortable with your company/likes spending time with you (and safe).
Establish that comfort zone first, then you're gold. Human beings actually like spending time with other human...
Maybe. But when you're looking up devils, it's because you want to reference all of the devils typically. I don't agree that it's six of one, half dozen of the other. YMMV.
Realistically, I don't think many folks who have knee-jerk fear reactions to a thing, regardless of political or religious bend, fully explore why they have that reaction.
I sort of get where you're coming from, but in this case I would not trust a) the general public to provide results that are i) sensible ii) to be of a low enough volume that that the 'non-sensible' comments would be weeded out by folks who actually know what they are about, given that they have...
In an ideal world, the cost of publishing is refunded (or paid for right off the bat), and is separate from the general research grant. But I read and understand your concerns with that model.
What is the impact of what you're calling data and code being made available?
I see where you're coming from. I was coming at it from the angle of 'if you're going to contradict someone, you'd better have your ducks in a row'. Despite not having expertise in this area, maybe there were other facts informing @Staffan 's opinion?
Thanks for describing your real world...
Like I said, I agree with your sentiment. @Belen had some instructive insights on how the sausage is made. But yes, that is the way it should be, ideally.
My opinion is that all scientific papers/studies should be publicly accessible... as long as they are properly peer reviewed. Stuff that's...
Err... wut? @Belen makes a statement. @Staffan responds. I have almost no knowledge in this area, so asked these two to explain their positions, because it seems like an interesting topic. Belen responds with a super cogent, highly detailed response. Staffan responds with what amounts to 'I...
Right. You are just restating your original position, in a single sentence, nothing new brought to the table. Not very persuasive as an argument to be honest! Did you read @Belen 's counter? Try to jibe that with your position and try again.