Edit history

It may seem an odd question for the PeerJ community. Nevertheless, I have to ask it to maybe start an overdue open discussion.

The concrete case is a method to reconstruct palaeoclimate based on plant taxon lists, the "Coexistence Approach", a special form of an unweighted mutual climate range method. Overlap of modern-day climate tolerances (min-max values) of plant genera/families is used to define a "coexistence interval" for a fossil plant assemblage to provide a quantitative climate estimate.

We pointed to several problems (data, in 2012; application, theory, in 2016). Authors of a recently published paper informed me that they are not sure whether they are allowed publishing the used tolerances, and editors informed me that it is not their business to enforce documentation of primary data.

My opinion is that it should be obligatory in such a case that the basic data (here: climate tolerances) are published, so the results can be reproduced by others and errors eliminated/identified. And it's in the interest of the journals to impose such a policy.

I'd like to have your opinion on this.

For further information see my two recent posts Business as usual / Trying to disperse the Impermeable Fog

by Guido Grimm ·

It may seem an odd question for the PeerJ community. Nevertheless, I have to ask it to maybe start an overdue open discussion.

The concrete case is a method to reconstruct palaeoclimate based on plant taxon lists, the "Coexistence Approach", a special form of an unweighted mutual climate range method. Overlap of modern-day climate tolerances (min-max values) of plant genera/families is used to define a "coexistence interval" for a fossil plant assemblage to provide a quantitative climate estimate.

We pointed to several problems (data, in 2012; application, theory, in 2016). Authors of a recently published paper informed me that they are not sure whether they are allowed publishing the used tolerances, and editors informed me that it is not their business to enforce documentation of primary data.

My opinion is that it should be obligatory in such a case that the basic data (here: climate tolerances) are published, so the results can be reproduced by others and errors eliminated/identified. And it's in the interest of the journals to impose such a policy.

I'd like to have your opinion on this.

For further information see my two recent posts Business as usual Trying to disperse the Impermeable Fog

by Guido Grimm ·
Should we be forced to document primary data integral to our results?

It may seem an odd question for the PeerJ community. Nevertheless, I have to ask it to maybe start an overdue open discussion.

The concrete case is a method to reconstruct palaeoclimate based on plant taxon lists, the "Coexistence Approach", a special form of an unweighted mutual climate range method. Overlap of modern-day climate tolerances (min-max values) of plant genera/families is used to define a "coexistence interval" for a fossil plant assemblage to provide a quantitative climate estimate.

We pointed to several problems (data, in 2012; application, theory, in 2016). Authors of a recently published paper informed me that they are not sure whether they are allowed publishing the used tolerances, and editors informed me that it is not their business to enforce documentation of primary data.

My opinion is that it should be obligatory in such a case that the basic data (here: climate tolerances) are published, so the results can be reproduced by others and errors eliminated/identified. And it's in the interest of the journals to impose such a policy.

I'd like to have your opinion on this.

For further information see my two recent posts Business as usual [Trying to disperse the Impermeable Fog] (http://researchinpeace.blogspot.com/2018/02/trying-to-disperse-impermeable-fog-2.html)

by Guido Grimm ·