| |||||||||||||
A scientific basis for Open Source SoftwareA scientific basis for Open Source SoftwarePosted May 21, 2012 16:08 UTC (Mon) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432)In reply to: A scientific basis for Open Source Software by richo123 Parent article: A scientific basis for Open Source Software
> you can always have recourse to the journal correspondence section or to
> private communication.
Good luck with that. My experience is that authors either do not have the time to adequately answer and resolve questions or are afraid to do so because they know the models stink.
(Log in to post comments)
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 21, 2012 17:14 UTC (Mon) by deater (subscriber, #11746) [Link]
>> you can always have recourse to the journal correspondence section or to
>> private communication.
> Good luck with that. My experience is that authors either do not have the time to
I want to completely agree with this. I've had the experience of asking for source *when the final published paper said it would be available* and still had them refuse on the grounds that it "wasn't ready yet". Two years after publication.
As for the correspondence section, in many computer related fields people publish in conferences. Good luck getting anything out of a conference after it is finished. I've found papers that have had actively inaccurate information, but there's no one to complain to, no mechanism for getting a correction published, and the original authors don't care because hey they got another publication.
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 21, 2012 18:10 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
by two years after the paper is published, the people are on to different projects and generally not very interested in working on something they 'finished' two years ago for no additional money or credit.
A scientific basis for Open Source Software Posted May 21, 2012 20:05 UTC (Mon) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
And that's exactly the problem. We must require source code with all publications. The purpose of publications is to expand knowledge. The whole reason we have references is so that others may look at our work and build upon it. Withholding source is completely contrary to the hole purpose of publication.
Except that most research groups don't see publications that they. Publications are one of two things: a way to graduate or a way to obtain tenure. That's a very different set of goals with a very different values and activities motivated by it. Reproducibility is not among them.
|
|||||||||||||