> What I'm saying is that scientific code doesn't need to handle every special case or be easily usable by non-experts. In fact the time spent making it that w

> What I'm saying is that scientific code doesn't need to handle every special case or be easily usable by non-experts. In fact the time spent making it that way is time that a scientist spends doing software engineering instead of science, which isn't very efficient. If the proof on which the paper is based is in the code that produced the evidence, you absolutely need to be able to let a lambda user run it without specific knowledge to abide to the reproducible principle. Asking a reviewer to fiddle about like a IT professional to get something working is bound to promote lazy reviewing and either will result into dismissing the result or approval without real review. And by the way producing a paper could be argued it isn't really science either, but if you are working with MSFT Office, you know there is a fair amount of non science work hours that has been put into that as well.