While I don't disagree with your definition of reproducibility, I want to point out that very few papers would satisfy that criteria, regardless of their use of

While I don't disagree with your definition of reproducibility, I want to point out that very few papers would satisfy that criteria, regardless of their use of a closed- vs open-source software. Here is a recent example: Imperial College COVID-19 response team published an article[1] where they modeled different effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as suppression and mitigation on the number of infected, deaths, etc. This is a very interesting result, but it's impossible to replicate their results in practice without contacting the authors, as their methodology is not enough to reproduce it. While someone else[2] posted their own model that is very well documented and fully reproducible by anyone with a $230/year personal license. While theoretically [1] is high science and [2] is not, in my own opinion [2] is better than [1]. I would love more science to be done and discussed that way. Ideally, using open-source software, but in practice, using Wolfram Language, in that case, is already good enough in my opinion. PS. I'm not affiliated with Wolfram Research in any way. [1] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3RwGVLlRhBGLT2_KdL1RXk6_XF04RFSYgz5MjhN6LLysKbGonXGnRiZOY https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... [2] https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1901002 https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1901002