Source code availaility for academic papers is important for reproducibility, so other people can run additional experiments and demonstrate that the performanc

Source code availaility for academic papers is important for reproducibility, so other people can run additional experiments and demonstrate that the performance numbers in the paper weren't fudged. It's not necessarily going to be useful for production use. There are exceptions to this; for example, there are papers were the authors claim that a flash/SSD emulator is suitable for use by other academics to experiment with their FTL ideas, or to grab network traces from NFS traffic so they can be replayed to test file system performance using real world data. In those cases, the point of the paper is to share a tool that can be used by other researchers (as well as the team that created the tool in the first place), and in that case, the code had better d*mned well work. (But even then, there might be buffer overrun bugs in the SSD emulator; which is fine, since the FTL is intended to be provided by an academic researcher, and it is not expected to accept arbitrary inputs including from a malicious attacker.) I don't know whether the papers in your case were meant to be documentation for code that was meant to be shared, or to explore a particular research idea, the code was only meant for that particular purpose. Even if it was for the former, there's an awful lot of bitrotted, unreliable "abandonware" on sourceforge or github that can be pretty skanky; that's a problem which is not restricted to academically published papers.