In the comments on a previous post, dadakim raises a pertinent question about publishing practices that hasn’t (yet?) been adopted in sociology (other than by SMR*, as far as i know). I re-raise it here in case you missed it because i’d be interested in reader reactions to the idea.
But the motivation for this post was actually an unrelated publishing issue has been bugging me for a while. Why is it that news articles that mention scientific research don’t have to detail their sources? This is one practice i’ve never understood. I get elated when i see articles that actually go ahead and source the original materials, which is sad, since i think it should be SOP.
*See the last paragraph of the guidelines.
Permutations 
Maybe we can figure out how to do a poll on the blog?
I strongly agree with you on secondary sources.
I will link again to Jeremy Freese on this issue: http://www.jeremyfreese.com/docs/freese-reproducibility-webdraft.pdf and http://www.jeremyfreese.com/docs/Freese%20-%20OpenSourceSocialScience%20-%20062807.pdf