CCL:G: Science code manifesto

 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>
 >