Source 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 paper

Source 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.