If the scientific publishers where doing their job, this
should be a simple matter of posting a comment
online to the original paper, in the Journal's web site...

but,

...as we all know, most of scientific publishing is a broken
industry whose goal is only to provide career evaluations
of academic employees to facilitate the job of academic
administrators. In short, papers are simple tokens to be
counted in academic resumes to facilitate the evaluation
of promotions and job applications. That's why it is ok
to continue using pre-Internet technology for scientific
papers... indeed... we still call them "papers".

Most publishers have no concern for disseminating
useful scientific information, much less for supporting
the reproducibility verification requirements of the
scientific method.

The societies that run most Journals are only interested
on the revenue that the journals provide and have lost
track of their mission of promoting the progress of
science an technology.

Academics, for the most part, play along in collusion with
these unscientific publishers, by volunteering their time
to review, edit, submit and cite papers, and thereby giving
credibility to the papers and the journals. Despite the fact
that such publications that have no scientific content, given
that they do not enable anyone to verify the replication of
results. They offer "peer-review" written opinons as the
deceptive substitute for what should have been an attempt
for replicating results. All forming a vicious circle in which
researcher's reputation is traded in exchange for journal's
reputation.

The worst part of this state of affairs is that senior researchers
in labs all over the world keep corrupting young researchers by
mentoring them with the distorted notion that scientific research
is about "Publish or Perish", a cheap marketing slogan that
only serves the profitable business of publishers and has no
regard for the economic investment that society at large make
in scientific research.

Mentors fail on their responsibility to train the next generation
of researchers on the actual honest practice of the scientific
method. Many grad students have no idea that the core
practice of the scientific method is the verification of
reproducibility, instead they are mislead to believe that
peer-review is a sufficient substitute, and that publising
papers is the final goal of scientific research.

We see the large majority of Journal and Conferences asking
for novelty, (which is indeed irrelevant to the scientifc method),
and we only see a handful of venues that care about reproducibility.
Journal are confused trying to play the role of the Patent Office,
and have further confused "scientists" with "inventors" despite
the fact that these are two very different professions.

In particular, their is an abysmal lack of venues where one
could publish attempts of replication of results, whether they
are positive or negative results.


It is time for each one of us to ask ourselves if we are in
this field, just because we needed a job, or whether we
honestly care about the practice of scientific research,
and if so, whether we have the character to take action
and fix the many things that are broken in scientific
publishing.

It is great to hear that you are considering publishing
your findings in the Insight Journal. It is certainly one of
the few places where reproducible articles are welcomed,
and where the materials that needed for replicating results
(source code, data, scripts) are actually a requirement.

                   http://www.insight-journal.org/

True to the real practice of science:

                           'Nullius in verba'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_...

                   "Take nobody's word for it"



------------------

More on the sad state of affairs of scientific publishing:

http://videolectures.net/cancerbioinform...
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n1/...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v48...
http://www.nature.com/news/replication-s...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/reinventi...