The case for open computer programs : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
Scientific communication relies on evidence that cannot be entirely included in publications, but the rise of computational science has added a new layer of inaccessibility. Although it is now accepted that data should be made available on request, the current regulations regarding the availability of software are inconsistent. We argue that, with some exceptions, anything less than the release of source programs is intolerable for results that depend on computation. The vagaries of hardware, software and natural language will always ensure that exact reproducibility remains uncertain, but withholding code increases the chances that efforts to reproduce results will fail.
Shared by 1 person
More from this website
Insect-inspired device achieves panoramic view and sharp focus at any distance.
University says loss of animals and lab records may ruin years of work on psychiatric diseases.
Comprehensive tagging reveals workers switch tasks as they age.
Will an astronaut who falls into a black hole be crushed or burned to a crisp?
Researchers and funding agencies need to put a premium on ensuring that results are reproducible, argues Jonathan F. Russell.
Cheap open-access journals raise questions about the value publishers add for their money.
Modified T cells seek out and destroy blood cancer.
Unorthodox technique is far more effective than antibiotics at treating recurrent gut infection.
Nature Chemistry signed up for a Twitter account in March 2009. More than 5,000 tweets later, what have we learned and how do we use it?
Massive open online courses are transforming higher education — and providing fodder for scientific research.
Although debate over scientific definitions is important, it risks obscuring the real issues.