Transparency is only working if everyone plays by the same rules, particularly when it comes to patents, and there are a few players who have been getting away with openly sharting on the rules for decades now.
The fact these methods are omitted has numerous problems. One key issue this provides is reproducibility. All science has to be reproducible and a building block for future science. Omitting key details makes this unfit for purpose.
Secondly, it also means research can not be checked for accuracy and truth, which I do sometimes wonder if thats on purpose. Perhaps they are only presenting the most successful attempt, but not the average situation.
Lastly, this fully goes against the spirit of academic research. I want anyone out there to develop either a brand new usage for my work or adapt and improve my work, either building on it, or finding a new way of doing it that's easier, or more repeatable/reliable. It saves me having to do it, and as I am still working in that field, I will benefit from it.
> not investment strategy
> highest levels of transparency
Your comment makes my point, again:
Computers only happened when academics transitioned to programs with investment plans to accomplish a goal — steeped in secrecy. Before that, it was just thought experiments.
Both at Bletchley park (for some innovations) and the naval lab for general purpose computers.