No open data, no open calculation how you reached a certain theoretical result and no open code with which the simulation/analysis is done.
There is also the case to be made for a reproducibility crisis in the hard sciences.
The data is open, the code is open. They even had Jupiter notebooks doing the later parts of the analysis when they published the first detection.
And, one cannot overstate that while the black hole mergers might have been bogus for some reason, the neutron star merger as been observed by over 80 different experiments in all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
> “But Reitze counters that the complete data from that first run is already available online. According to Shoemaker, this includes the relevant time series data and the programs used, but "it's not a trivial matter to use them." Caltech even held a training workshop on how to deal with gravitational-wave data. That's a pretty far cry from asking the physics community to take its analysis on faith...”
Are you refuting this statement? To me, it looks like the data/analysis are open, but not yet independently verified due to difficult nature of problem space.
In practice, there's usually at least two big experiments (not necessarily quite of the same generation) that were built by different groups which corroborate results. This is currently the best defense against big mistakes.
However, from my experience in years of publishing to and reviewing for several APS journals, I stand by my statement. Because of 'publish or perish' nobody wants to give up any 'competitive edge' of their particular research. So there is no incentive system in place to foster an open source everything attitude.
The younger scientists, current PhD generation and a little up are all fed up with closed source/private data as there are no enough bright examples how good open source/data can work out.
I will admit that most telescopes operate on a rolling window of privacy (usually 12-18 months) so that an observer with an original idea can't have their research snatched out from under them, but most will gladly share their data for someone who has doubts or wants to open up communications on reproducibility.
I worked very closely with this field, participating with a similar experiment to use frequent observations of accurately modeled millisecond pulsars to study and detect gravitational wave, and while we did have that rolling window, nearly all of our data was shared far and wide often well before that window was up.
Perhaps LIGO's behavior seems secretive, but they have a multi-national group with hundreds of researchers working on it, so if you're even remotely within the field, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion at all. Their analysis techniques have been public for at least the last 5 years (some of their repos go back at least 7 years: https://github.com/gwastro). Their data is completely available (https://www.gw-openscience.org/data/), and even have an entire series of materials on how they perform their techniques (https://www.gw-openscience.org/static/workshop1/course.html).
I've found Astrophysics to be one of the most reproducible and open fields in science, since it rarely has the same kind of financial motivations that bio-med, minerals and materials science, and even environmental science can have.
Here's a podcast I head recently that went over gravational waves in detail: https://www.danielandjorge.com/podcasts/what-are-gravitation...
Thousands of people worked on gravitational waves, but somehow only LIGO is the one taking credit. I'd like to know what other physicists think of the LIGO results and methods.
I work in gammay-ray astronomy. We work closely together with LIGO, they alert us in case something interesting happens so we can observe the same position.
This is e.g. what happened with the Neutron star merger.
The community has great respect for the awesome work our colleagues at LIGO do.
Especially since they made data and code public, which sadly is something that just starts gaining track in gammaray astronomy.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/the-absurdity-of-the-nobel-prizes-in-science/541863/
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/its-time-to-rethink-the-nobel-prizes/
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_believe_the_Nobel_Prize_is_fair_and_or_even_relevant