4 ms·
Snark aside, I can't see what good maintaining such a public list and encouraging people (presumably frustrated graduate students) to submit complaints. When wo
by moab 6y ago
Snark aside, I can't see what good maintaining such a public list and encouraging people (presumably frustrated graduate students) to submit complaints. When working on the experimental section of a paper, maybe half of the papers you try to obtain some source code for or get help from the authors will end up being duds, and so you typically just say in your paper "we contacted the authors but unfortunately were not able to reproduce their experiments / obtain their source code". The existing approach seems like a more polite and equally effective way of encouraging authors to build reproducible research without resorting to McCarthy-style public punishment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- asdff 6y agoI agree that this naming and shaming doesn't do any good. Especially looking at this list, some of these are preprints. I think journals should start asking for all code used along with the data being deposited somewhere accessible to other researchers in order for the paper to be accepted. Ideally reviewers should have been asking for this, but they haven't, so it's up to the editors.