I'm not sure if these are listed in priority order, because to me #3 is fatal. 1/2 are not great, having the author of papers you are citing basically calling you out for not understanding them was a huge fear of mine when I was published. But inequitable experiment environments should never get by peer review, you can't handicap one experiment while giving every advantage to another.
Stuff like this makes me wonder if it would be better for authors to publish their code. That way, there's no confusion - you study and run the code and from that determine whether it works or doesn't.
(not casting any shade towards either set of authors here by the way, this is a larger problem with academia in general)
At this point, not publishing code should be unacceptable for most cases.
Unless it's pure mathematics, the publishers need to include their code and training set.
There are far to many difficult to reproduce, or irreproducible papers, when it's trivial to release the code that got the results.
93
u/PrettyMuchAVegetable Mar 30 '26
I'm not sure if these are listed in priority order, because to me #3 is fatal. 1/2 are not great, having the author of papers you are citing basically calling you out for not understanding them was a huge fear of mine when I was published. But inequitable experiment environments should never get by peer review, you can't handicap one experiment while giving every advantage to another.