> This is the state of science in a lot fields unfortunately. Many reviewers skim the paper, put in a thinly veiled complaint about why their own paper was not cited, and don't bother with the code.
Excuse me. Is this your actual experience or the meme that everybody is simply repeating?
In the admittedly few papers I have published, the reviewers’ feedback has been a net positive I wouldn’t be without.
Also, the general focus on code in science here on HN is so incredibly myopic and narrow minded. Code for research are not high-profile software projects. They are a piece in the toolbox used to solve a problem. Some grow to become larger projects, some fulfill their purpose and stay fixed in time.
Actual experience. The state of code in Bioinformatics is a joke. Many do not know the word 'conda' or 'docker', and example datasets are far and few between.
Excuse me. Is this your actual experience or the meme that everybody is simply repeating?
In the admittedly few papers I have published, the reviewers’ feedback has been a net positive I wouldn’t be without.
Also, the general focus on code in science here on HN is so incredibly myopic and narrow minded. Code for research are not high-profile software projects. They are a piece in the toolbox used to solve a problem. Some grow to become larger projects, some fulfill their purpose and stay fixed in time.