3 ms·
(1) You publish the code at the time of publication of the paper, not before. (2) This is a reason to publish the code, not a reason not to publish it. (3) You
by ppod 11y ago
(1) You publish the code at the time of publication of the paper, not before.
(2) This is a reason to publish the code, not a reason not to publish it.
(3) You don't necessarily have to make package it neatly like production software, but some effort is necessary.
We just wouldn't accept these kind of excuses for other descriptions of methodology, even though they might apply. There's no reason that code should be an exception.
- cwyers 11y agoFor 1, I read that as thinking you could get a second paper out of running the same code on another dataset, and not wanting to be scooped on the second paper.
- IanCal 11y agoI understand the thinking but this should sound as non-sensical as > We didn't release our first, second or third papers because we didn't want to be scooped on the fourth and if we publish then someone might build on our work!
- dagw 11y agoWe didn't release our first, second or third papers because we didn't want to be scooped on the fourth and if we publish then someone might build on our work! Which happens all the time. If you are working on something big you'll sometimes hold back on publishing parts of your research until you've completed the big thing for just that reason. Then once you've completed the big thing you publish all four papers either together or in quick succession.
- aiNohY6g 11y agoJust running the same code on another dataset is not research, it's production. Without minimal extra scientific efforts, such a work, while valuable, certainly does not deserve a scientific article in a peer review journal.