If we want replicable science, the program code must be open.
The scientific journal Nature has published an article in which it is arguably argued that the source code of programs written for scientific experiments must be open. At the moment, the journal writes, a paradoxical situation has developed: the results of scientific research are published in open access, but it is difficult to repeat the experiment, because the authors of the scientific work do not open the source codes of the programs written by them. But modern scientific research almost always includes intensive computer calculations, analysis of experimental data, modeling.
Closed code threatens the fundamental principle of science, calling into question the repeatability of a scientific experiment. Given the seriousness of the problem, the authors of the article propose to solve it at a fundamental level, that is, to oblige all scientists to publish the source codes of programs under a free license.
Moreover, authors of scientific works require careful and detailed documentation of the source code so that it is suitable for use by other experimenters, as well as for modifications.
At the moment there are discussions on this issue in the scientific community. Some journals have already changed the rules for accepting articles and require mandatory opening source. But not everyone did this. There is an alternative point of view that it is not necessary to publish the full source code, but only a verbal description of the basic algorithm is sufficient. For example, the same Nature journal does not require mandatory publication of the code, but only “a detailed description, which is sufficient for others to write similar code and do the same experiment.”
')
According to the authors of the article, such half measures do not provide the full repeatability of the experiment. They also give examples when organizations published scientific data and a description of the algorithm, but when other experimenters recreated the program code according to the description of the algorithm, they obtained results somewhat different from the original results. The trial showed that the cause was errors in the original program. This situation could have been avoided if the authors of the scientific work immediately published the source code - and then the errors could be corrected at an early stage.
Closed code threatens the fundamental principle of science, calling into question the repeatability of a scientific experiment. Given the seriousness of the problem, the authors of the article propose to solve it at a fundamental level, that is, to oblige all scientists to publish the source codes of programs under a free license.
Moreover, authors of scientific works require careful and detailed documentation of the source code so that it is suitable for use by other experimenters, as well as for modifications.
At the moment there are discussions on this issue in the scientific community. Some journals have already changed the rules for accepting articles and require mandatory opening source. But not everyone did this. There is an alternative point of view that it is not necessary to publish the full source code, but only a verbal description of the basic algorithm is sufficient. For example, the same Nature journal does not require mandatory publication of the code, but only “a detailed description, which is sufficient for others to write similar code and do the same experiment.”
')
According to the authors of the article, such half measures do not provide the full repeatability of the experiment. They also give examples when organizations published scientific data and a description of the algorithm, but when other experimenters recreated the program code according to the description of the algorithm, they obtained results somewhat different from the original results. The trial showed that the cause was errors in the original program. This situation could have been avoided if the authors of the scientific work immediately published the source code - and then the errors could be corrected at an early stage.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/138959/
All Articles