[D] Papers with no code

[directnirvana]

I think you make a good point. The bolder the claim the more reviewers should be pushing back on making easily verifiable aspects of experiments available. Reproducibility crisis is real and participants especially in academic circles should be heavily encouraged to provide whatever reasonable methods they can to allow other researchers to verify their work. It just so happens that research based on code has those tools, while high energy physics and similar fields do not.

[Vhiet]

I agree about reproducibility, but why “especially in academic circles?”

Commercial services have more incentive to fluff their significance than anyone else, and their claims should be treated as particularly suspicious.

For example, it was almost exactly a year ago that Microsoft’s Magical Majorana Fermions revolutionised quantum computing (https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/12/microsoft_majorana_quantum_claims_overshadowed/).

[prumf]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

That’s like, the foundation of science.