4 ms·
in my experience, it's common in academia for code to "float around". often it's not officially open source or distributed, but you know someone who has the cod
by dododo 16y ago
in my experience, it's common in academia for code to "float around". often it's not officially open source or distributed, but you know someone who has the code for some paper, so you can use it. there's even a few textbooks in this state (for years).
i think the real reason for not releasing this code is time---you might be surprised at just how much effort goes into making a paper/talk/article polished. sure, you could just release the hacky code you used to do your calculations, but you'd like so much more---for it to be useful, for it to be a credit to you, for it to also do XYZ. research code is efficient in that it gets exactly what you want for the paper; it's rarely usable by anyone else. there is essentially zero payoff in academia in publishing code, and so there's no time to fulfill these desires.
- possibilistic 16y agoI definitely agree with this. Besides, the code itself is an insignificant part of the process. Any paper will include more than enough evidence to back up its assertions and provide a path for duplicating its results.
- araneae 16y agoExactly. In my experience, if someone wants to look at your code, they will e-mail you and ask for it. Then you e-mail it to them. Sharing on something like sourceforge just simple isn't done. It's not because scientists are "cheating," it's because it's not part of the culture.
- eru 16y agoThere could be some payoff for releasing code: If other people use your code, you could probably get a citation for it.