3 ms·
Don't forget that a particular code might have 2 or 3 paper's worth in it, so releasing the code after 1 paper could mean getting "scooped" on another paper. I
by enjalot 15y ago
Don't forget that a particular code might have 2 or 3 paper's worth in it, so releasing the code after 1 paper could mean getting "scooped" on another paper.
I'm left a little cynical after a Master's in computational science, and I still can't believe that open code is not part of the repeatability doctrine. I suppose my goals are not aligned with most grad students since I have no interest in an academic career (at least not after many years in industry) but I got much more satisfaction from feedback on my blog posts than publication.
Hell, each blog post is its own little publication, and it may not be peer reviewed before its published, but the amount of links to them and google searches prove that I have more than a few peers who appreciate my contributions.
- ahi 15y agoAs far as I can tell, the two main criteria that makes a publication an academic publication: 1) Peer review is done anonymously and errors are discussed privately. 2) More people "wrote" it than read it.
- jedbrown 15y agoIt might also spawn a new collaboration. There are dishonest people in science, but anyone scooping your work has to weigh the risks of getting called out for it, which is more likely if your software is good and widely used. I don't believe in the private model, so I release code when it's ready, regardless of where it fits in the publication cycle. It's pretty neat from a reproducibility perspective to submit a paper based on code that is runnable as a tutorial example shipped with a library that the reviewers stand a good chance of already having installed.