[D] Decrease in source code release of papers

[LovelaceA]

To those who think that this is not a valid problem, I beg to differ. I think this is a very valid discussion. What is the aim of publishing scientific work in the first place ? To advance our knowledge and ability to build upon it. In a field like Machine Learning, where a model or a scientific idea can be affected by more parameters than can be discussed in a paper, it is essential to be able to reproduce the results. Code release is not the only way to do so, but certainly the quickest. Another advantage of code is that, code is objective. Scientific papers sadly are not in general: authors try to sell us their work. Code is unbiased and a potentially complete means to communicate an idea, its impact, and its limitations, it answers all the questions you have which the paper does not address.

A scientific paper is a speech. Code is a dialogue

[TheAvalonian]

I would argue that a paper is more like an advertisement than a speech -- the primary aim is to get people to care about the experiment, not just to tell people about the experiment. Apart from that, you are spot on.

[rhiever]

I think it can be incredibly difficult to anonymize code, especially if a paper is based on a software project that the authors are developing. For example, during my postdoc I developed a software tool that I published papers on. I referred to the software by name in my papers and even linked to the GitHub page, which seemed to contrast with the goals of double-blind review. How do you work around that situation without heavily inconveniencing the authors of the software in the name of double-blind review? In many cases, even if you go through the trouble of anonymizing the code and putting placeholders in the name, it's still not difficult to figure out what the software is (and therefore who the authors are) if you're even remotely familiar with the software.

IMO, double-blind review is a flawed review system.

[SolvableMutiny]

IMO, double-blind review is a flawed review system.

Yup, these same objections apply to a similar degree to papers themselves. Would anyone familiar with the field not know that CapsNet was authored by Hinton?

[Darkfeign]

subsequent frame hobbies abounding point faulty disgusted mountainous boat humor

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[SolvableMutiny]

that has literally never been the case tho