3 ms·

But if more journals archive artifices (code + data) and there was a bigger push to keep these around, when replication fails, they can at least go back to the

But if more journals archive artifices (code + data) and there was a bigger push to keep these around, when replication fails, they can at least go back to the exact code and say, "huh .. they implemented this differently. I think this is the problem with their algo" or "oh, we forgot to account for this." .. ideally after you've written your own, looking only at the methodology and without looking at the code for the original.

secabeen 8y ago
Having the journals archive artifices seems like a good idea, but the librarians hate it. The last thing they want to do is to give the for-profit journals another thing to monetize against the academy. What makes more sense is to have the universities and the library systems archive that stuff.
- lumost 8y ago
  why not use a public artifact repository? e.g. github, bitbucket, or a new academic collaboration.