|
|
|
|
|
by chrisseaton
2398 days ago
|
|
> Even so, very few people will be able to replicate that work outside without a very well funded laboratory or collaboration of their own. That's not a reason to not be open about it! > What good is a process document for obtaining an x-ray structure if the diffractometer costs a fortune and is a shared departmental or even national resource? I think it's inherently good! Even if you think can't use it right now, it's good to put it all out there for people looking and into the archives to keep it for the future. > In your example, how deep does the bill of materials go? Well if bills of materials are available for your components themselves then you don't need to break them down yourself. |
|
We're talking past each other. Openness in methods has been around in the physical and biological sciences for a very long time.
> Well if bills of materials are available for your components themselves then you don't need to break them down yourself.
Reverse engineering a piece of purchased equipment to publish its BoM now becomes a required part of scientific publication? Or, expecting a manufacturer to provide it and authorize it for general release? I don't think that's realistic.