attack of the replicants

So, as readers know, I have decided to roll the dice on being labeled a crank* by arguing that quantitative sociology should attempt to muster some pretense of keeping up with movements in other social science disciplines to increase the transparency and accountability of data analysis (see here for standards of data availability in the flagship journal of economics, or here for extensive and influential debate about replication that commenced more than a decade ago in political science). One of the more interesting arguments from my detractors is that requiring to deposit their code for others to examine and learn from is a crass thing to ask of true professionals.

My first reaction to this argument was to think that it's an interesting feature of certain predominantly-left enterprises that they are enthusiastic about demands for greater transparency and disclosure in other professions but see the Greater Good served by a clubbish and insular "trust us, we're professionals" attitude in their own. My second was to recall this actual response received by a graduate student in response to a request of a professor of sociology for information relevant to reproducing results in a published article:

I am getting a bit tired of everyone trying to get in on the bandwagon to "replicate" my work. I am tired of people taking advantage of my generosity trying to make a fast buck and a name for themselves. I am wise to your deception. What makes you think you could fool me?

Ever heard of an original idea? You go out and have an idea of your own. Why don't you try that, instead of appropriating someone else's idea? [...]

In case you didn't know, you are in the business where ideas matter, your own ideas, not someone else's. Please leave me, and anyone else with original ideas, alone.

I guess one could say here that the graduate student could file an "ethics complaint" against the professor, although the ASA code of ethics is extremely vague about what help the professor is obliged to give, and it's always good to propose to people in subordinate positions that they should be comforted by the existence of quasi-litigious solutions that could be avoided in the first place if the organization/discipline had better practices.

* Update: Earlier, I said "precocious crank," because I associate crank-dom with being older than I am, so that if I was labeled a "crank" (as opposed to just, say, "crazy"), it would be an early achievement on my part. This apparently confused readers, so I revised it.