Thanks for the love =). I agree about funding being an ulterior motive for a hiring committee to look at publication history. In my defense, I brought it abou

Thanks for the love =). I agree about funding being an ulterior motive for a hiring committee to look at publication history. In my defense, I brought it about 2/3 of the way through with: "We need trusted ways to quantify just how useful that API and associated code are to the scientific community, which can be listed on a scientist's profile and utilized by committees making hiring and funding decisions." Science is constrained by resources, like everything else, but that doesn't mean scientists shouldn't try to optimize what can be done with the resources available. Also, you imply that good science requires your own experimental data - and bearing associated costs - but that's only true when experimentalists aren't incentivized to share their data.