| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
they are writing Linux code, but not releasing it.they are writing Linux code, but not releasing it.Posted Jul 25, 2007 17:28 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: they are writing Linux code, but not releasing it. by zooko Parent article: Where have the universities gone?
Referees should reject as "unreproducible" any results which require source code if that source code is not included with the results. This is strange approach. Source code usually can be regarded as an equipment - and any reproduction where the same equipment is used can not be called independent! So if you want to talk about science and not alchemy then you must write your own code...
(Log in to post comments)
they are writing Linux code, but not releasing it. Posted Jul 26, 2007 20:20 UTC (Thu) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link] On the contrary; source code is in its essence a set of steps necessary to complete a task.
Can you call any results "reproducible" if you don't have all the steps used to attain the result?
Unless you're publishing or citing a full and -very- well documented algorithm, including the source code is critical for proper science.
|
|
||||||||||||