On Not Trusting Data Science

Language Lab of the University of Pennsylvania comments on a recent article about the nature of the data scientist.  Essentially making the case that the label of 'scientist' is less valuable than it seems.  Most science in reviewed journals does not provide access to the data used for the work.  So the results are not really reproducible.  So much for the claim of science.  As they state it: " ... Most peer-reviewed scientific papers are based on unpublished (and typically unavailable) data, and under-documented (and often crucially errorful) methods. Journals are reluctant to publish negative results (for the plausible reason that there are lots of ways to screw up an experiment), and equally reluctant to publish failures to replicate positive ones. For these and other reasons, most peer-reviewed scientific papers are wrong, and the more prominent the journal, the less likely published results are to be replicable. ... " 

They give some interesting examples in the language space.  So much for what I thought was a key aspect of science.