3 ms·
For some fields, it seems like the model should shift to "you will publish your source code and data alongside the writeup, else you won't be publishing here."
by amcintyre 15y ago
For some fields, it seems like the model should shift to "you will publish your source code and data alongside the writeup, else you won't be publishing here."
Not doing so seems equivalent to publishing a paper about applications and characteristics of a new mathematical proof without actually including the proof.
- garenp 15y agoSource code should absolutely be required. If you can't reproduce results, you aren't doing science. I do not understand why publishers would even accept papers while _knowing_ that there is code out there that would verify the papers claims. The phrase _willfully ignorant_ comes to mind. Not too long ago I emailed someone at UIUC about a tool they wrote which was mentioned in a research paper I ran into online. I wanted to see if their method really was much better than previous ones, and if the trade-offs they made were worth it. Did I get it? No. Instead, they sent me a link to some new company founded based on the tool. I apparently had to be a "researcher" to receive the magical tarball. It also seemed to me to be a conflict of interest for a Professor to be working for a University and company at the same time - all while selectively choosing who can and cannot get access to their results.