4 ms·
If published research is based on a code base, then surely the documentation and working code is equally important than the carefully written paper.
by acutesoftware 6y ago
If published research is based on a code base, then surely the documentation and working code is equally important than the carefully written paper.
- OminousWeapons 6y agoI completely agree, the problem is the journal editors and reviewers largely don't.
- freeone3000 6y agoNo, the paper is what matters. The code is a means to generate the paper.
- bumby 6y agoI agree, but that’s similar to saying the data is what matters, not the methodology. In the research germane to this conversation, software is the means by which the scientific data is generated. If the software is flawed, it undermines the confidence in the data and thus the conclusions.
- freeone3000 6y agoMost researchers would agree with the first statement without significant qualification. Methods are at the end for a reason.
- bumby 6y agoNot disagreeing with your assertion on the opinion of “most researchers” but you’ll often find quite a few people advocating for using the methodology sans data as a means to determine publication worthiness to try and avoid the perverse incentives for novel or meaningful data. I think it’s too easy to game the data (whether knowingly or not) with poor methodology. I advocate process before product, in other words.