Skip to main content

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*

1
  • How has this answer not received an upvote? It has now. Our group has found peer review to be one of the most effective tools of all, a lot more important than unit tests when it come to scientific code. It's easy to make an error when translating a complex set of equations in a scientific journal article to code. Scientists and engineers oftentimes make for extremely poor programmers; peer review can catch architectural uglinesses that make the code hard to maintain / understand / use. Commented Jul 8, 2018 at 14:53