Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

24
  • 45
    For the same reason most papers lack the raw data (publishing only statistically distorted "results"). Commented Oct 25, 2012 at 12:51
  • 2
    I edited the question. Perhaps "mention" isn't the best word. In some cases, some of the points made in the papers critically depend on the software, but the software is vaporware. As in, to properly evaluate the validity of the paper, someone has to be able to run the software. Commented Oct 25, 2012 at 15:43
  • 8
    @JohnL I'd say a paper can critically depend on the software without being about the software. Like an interesting property of the world that is demonstrated/found using a software tool. If we cannot review the tool, how can we know the conclusion is correct? (Or rather: it is way easier to validate it if we can see the tool!) Commented Oct 25, 2012 at 15:58
  • 4
    @Andres F - One possibility is to implement your own version of the software using the ideas described in the paper. Although this is more work, it also arguably has more value - running the same implementation again only demonstrates the one implementation again. A new implementation helps demonstrate that the ideas themselves are valid, and not a fluke of some implementation detail. Significant issues that may not have been noticed or described before may be discovered during the re-implementation. Commented Oct 25, 2012 at 22:55
  • 3
    @KonradRudolph, of course it won't always be available. It may even become unavailable in a couple of years since publication (tapes erased and re-used, the whole group disbanded, paper shredded, etc.) Commented Oct 26, 2012 at 13:46