> I think there's not enough researchers that publish code. I agree, although lately there's been some effort by academia to make authors publish their code, o

> I think there's not enough researchers that publish code. I agree, although lately there's been some effort by academia to make authors publish their code, or at least disclose it to the reviewers. Several conferences have an artifact evaluation committee, which tries to reproduce the experimental part of submitted papers. Some conferences actually require a successful artifact evaluation to be accepted (see, for instance, the tool tracks at CAV [1] and TACAS [2]). Others, while not requiring an artifact evaluation, may encourage it by other means. The ACM, for instance, marks accepted papers with special badges [3] reflecting how well the alleged findings can be reproduced and whether the code is publicly available. [1] http://i-cav.org/2021/artifact-evaluation/ http://i-cav.org/2021/artifact-evaluation/ [2] https://etaps.org/2021/call-for-papers https://etaps.org/2021/call-for-papers [3] https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-and-badging-current https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-an...