From owner-chemistry -A_T- ccl.net Wed Oct 19 14:10:00 2011 From: "Jaroslav Kalinovski kofeinu:+:hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL:G: Science code manifesto Message-Id: <-45697-111019125949-25130-zWXnxciit+WExMXENSovUw(_)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Jaroslav Kalinovski Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:59:39 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Jaroslav Kalinovski [kofeinu-$-hotmail.com] Hi, I really do not understand... for me, the source code I am writing is like an equipment in the laboratory. Do you really need someone else equipment to make a proper review? Maybe in this case it is easy to send the code but rules are the same. Do you ask for particle accelerator when reviewing paper about experiment with one? If someone is having troubles with reproducing my results, one always can write to me and simply ask for the code but I do not feel I HAVE TO publish code explicitly. In the end it is my property, I can describe algorithm, points of theory but why should I give the code? No one is watching at the hands of experimentalists while reviewing their papers. I think people are forgetting that code is just a tool not a research result. It is true that relying only on reputation is not the perfect way but it works for other disciplines. In the end we always have to put on some trust in authors. That is all for me. Best regards, J.Kalinowski --- Laboratory of Physical Chemistry University of Helsinki --- Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence. ---------------------------------------- > From: owner-chemistry ~ ccl.net > To: kofeinu ~ hotmail.com > Subject: CCL:G: Science code manifesto > Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:50:08 -0700 > > > Sent to CCL by: George Fitzgerald [George.Fitzgerald[A]accelrys.com] > As a member of a company that makes money from selling software, I probably have a different outlook on this than most CCLers. But I have one very practical question: as a reviewer, do you really have the time and expertise to review 1000s of lines of source code? I find that properly reviewing a paper already takes several hours. From experience I know that reviewing somebody's source code can take days. > > Can anybody give me an example of what you'd even look for in the source code? I'm thinking back to, for example, Peter Gill's 'PRISM' method for Gaussian integration, or Benny Johnson and DFT analytic 2nd derivatives. Are you claiming that those papers shouldn’t have been published without the reviewer reviewing the code? > > -george> >