4 ms·
The journal I edit has a policy that the code and data has to be made available to the reviewers. I was surprised at the number of reviewers that dig into the c
by bachmeier 6y ago
The journal I edit has a policy that the code and data has to be made available to the reviewers. I was surprised at the number of reviewers that dig into the code.
- semi-extrinsic 6y agoTBH, code (even when all you can do is just looking at it and understanding how it works) is probably the most useful thing to the reviewers themselves. Imagine the equivalent for reviewing an experimental paper, if you were given a free instant travel to the place where they did the experiment and you could look at their setup and tinker with it and see how it works. I guarantee you a lot of reviewers would go for that.
- bachmeier 6y agoI've learned that what you say is true. This is particularly the case for papers that use small datasets and not especially complicated empirical analysis.
- jacobolus 6y agoSurprised that the reviewers do or don't look at the code?
- bachmeier 6y agoSurprised that the reviewers do look at the code. I had assumed they wouldn't want to put the time in. In hindsight, I think it's often the case that it's faster to look at the code than to read an unclear methodological description.
- jbay808 6y agoSpeaking as a reviewer, reviews do take an immense amount of time, especially just in trying to figure out what was done and how. Code would actually speed things up a lot.