CCL:G: Science code manifesto

 Sent to CCL by: "Alexander Bagaturyants" [bagaturyants-#-gmail.com]
 Dear CCLers,
 I believe that the current discussion becomes counterproductive.
 Of course, the author may decide whether to give an access to one's code or not.
 It is the author's inherent right.
 Actually, the code itself is necessary if (when) somebody wants to use it
 somehow in his/her future work.
 > From the pure scientific point of view, we need only the results of
 calculations and their verification.
 However, some authors are so inadequate that they even protest against any
 comparison or benchmarking of their codes and the results obtained.
 I believe that the scientific community must strongly oppose such a position. It
 has nothing to do with an honest attitude to science at all.
 Any code must be open to any comparison, verification and benchmarking, and the
 results of such a comparison, verification or benchmarking must be fully
 available to scientific community.
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: owner-chemistry+sasha==photonics.ru---ccl.net [mailto:owner-
 > chemistry+sasha==photonics.ru---ccl.net] On Behalf Of George Fitzgerald
 > George.Fitzgerald/./accelrys.com
 > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:50 PM
 > To: ÐÐÐÐÑÑÑÑÑÐÑ
 ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑ
 ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑ
 > Subject: CCL:G: Science code manifesto
 >
 >
 > 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 shouldnât have been
 > published without the reviewer reviewing the code?
 >
 > -george> To recover the email address of the author of the message,
 please
 > change>