Timeline for Why don't research papers that mention custom software release the source code?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2022 at 0:19 | comment | added | gnasher729 | The results don’t matter if (a) they are created by a tool with blatant faults, or (b) the author is lying and the results haven’t been created by that tool at all. | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 8:35 | comment | added | mgoeminne | @Paul I don't see the connection with the source code publication. Anyway, good editors pay attention to the notes the reviewers write to justify their decisions. Therefore mentions like "It's bullshit" are not taken into account. If the editor estimates the reviewers' recommandations are not relevant enough, he asks for the opinion of an other expert. The grad students don't take part in the review process. And if you cannot let your paper accepted after some years of submission, you should envisage this paper (or its content) is not so good. | |
| Oct 30, 2012 at 18:23 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ryan Schmidt | ||
| Oct 25, 2012 at 14:28 | comment | added | mgoeminne | Not really because (a) The reviewers ask to publish the code in a place they can access anonymously (or the authentication is done by the journal) (b) Since your paper is published, the other researchers can franckly use the same methodology/tools to replicate your study on an other data set or even on the same data set. The replications are less prestigious than the original paper, they will cite your work, and they offer a strong validation to your paper. So the original authors are glad to let the others do all this work for them. | |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 14:15 | comment | added | Dirk | Hmm, so you know (a) who your reviewer is and (b) give your code and data to someone who might be in direct competition with you? | |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 14:08 | comment | added | mgoeminne | @Dirk As far as I know, this is relatively common in software empirical studies. In the last (not yet accepted) submission of my team in this domain, one of the reviewers explicitly asked for a public access to our data as well as some pieces of code. I don't understand why the code should be so precious. It's (generally) just the realisation of the ideas described in the paper. Publishing the programs is a way to let the reader check if we correctly translate our ideas to actions. | |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 14:02 | comment | added | Dirk | I don't you think you have to send anyone who asks you your precious code... IMHO This answer is wrong. But I would like to see a research world where information is free... | |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 12:54 | history | edited | mgoeminne | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 12:37 | history | edited | mgoeminne | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 65 characters in body |
| S Oct 25, 2012 at 12:34 | history | suggested | chills42 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | spelling correction |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 12:23 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 25, 2012 at 12:34 | |||||
| Oct 25, 2012 at 11:11 | history | edited | mgoeminne | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 3 characters in body |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 10:35 | history | answered | mgoeminne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |