1. It might seem like the paper is enough to reproduce to you, but in my field, it’s not more often than it is. Hell, even a software version change produces di

1. It might seem like the paper is enough to reproduce to you, but in my field, it’s not more often than it is. Hell, even a software version change produces different result with the same params and seed. So don’t exclude a possibility you’re biased. 2. Code IS a competitive advantage. Some times you’ll reach out to the author to ask for clarification. And after some back and forth they’ll just suggest you send them the data and put them on the paper because they don’t really want to disclose the details or the method they’ve previously published. 3. I don’t think you’ll have issues if you share less than perfect code. Most reviewers are as bad at production code as you are. All in all, I think sharing code advances science. Yes, there’s gatekeeping, tricks to keep the knowledge inside the lab. But didn’t you choose the field because you want to advance the knowledge, help humankind? Making your research more reproducible by sharing the source code is a step in that direction.