Open research needs methodical detail

An image showing laboratory notes

Source: © Jeremy Fleming/Alamy Stock Photo

If another researcher can’t reproduce your work from what you’ve written, are you really being open?

Flicking through my thesis recently (my pandemic hobbies are getting extreme), I was surprised to find that a crucial bit of information is missing. So crucial, in fact, that no matter how carefully you follow the instructions in my experimental methods section to construct an electrode out of a stainless steel rod ‘encased in epoxy resin (Araldite standard)’, you would almost certainly fail.

What I forgot to mention is that the formulation of Araldite Standard changed towards the end of my PhD; electrodes made using ‘improved’ Araldite invariably undergo catastrophic crevice corrosion that make them useless. In fact, no other epoxy we tried worked as well as old formulation Araldite. That omission is especially surprising because my supervisor was a stickler for detail in the methods section – so much so that incorporating most of his suggestions caused mine to double in length.