I'm not sure, an easy biased answer from our side is that papers should include pseudo code closer to what we actually use to code (the flip side being we shoul

I'm not sure, an easy biased answer from our side is that papers should include pseudo code closer to what we actually use to code (the flip side being we should learn more math). However, a particularly frustrating example was one paper that did actually code up what they were talking about to test it, but didn't include the code in the paper at all (instead just graphs of the results). I think there is a general feeling that the code is all "implementation details" and not as important as the theory/proof/etc, which is very unfortunate.