Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Apr 2012 02:08 UTC
In the News "Modern science relies upon researchers sharing their work so that their peers can check and verify success or failure. But most scientists still don't share one crucial piece of information - the source codes of the computer programs driving much of today's scientific progress." Pretty crazy this isn't the norm yet.
Permalink for comment 514508
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So it isn't that complicated
by jburnett on Tue 17th Apr 2012 13:19 UTC
jburnett
Member since:
2012-03-29

From reading the comments since my last post it seems there are two main arguments for requiring the release of source code.

1. Authors do not fully disclose their method, making their work unreproducible. I thought this was the whole point of peer review. Journal editors are supposed to review the work to make sure that, at a minimum, it could be reproduced, even if they don't reproduce the work themselves. Otherwise you have a SCIgen http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ situation. (sorry, I don't know how to embed links in comments)

2. Scientists have gotten so lazy or incompetent that they are unable to reproduce results when given everything that a skilled scientist requires. Having gone to public school in the US I can believe this.

Fortunately, science is mostly merit based, so these people will quickly fall out of the ranks and go on to stimulating careers writing about science and politics, where they won't take up any more valuable peer review time.

Reply Score: 1