As an academic, nothing infuriates me more than the promise of code and/or data. There are valid reasons this happens, but the reality is such promise is quickly forgotten.
Even provided code is poorly documented and rarely works on a machine other than the author's.
One common phrase is.
"Data is available from the authors upon reasonable request"
Try doing that for any paper older than 18 months.
All it does it contribute to the replication crisis.
Which is kind of the point I was inferring. Everything now is just a stake in the ground, house pending… I think for a paper about an algorithm or novel way of doing something should be required to include the source code (not necessarily for release, but for proof to the journal reviewer at least). I’ve waited countless times for source code promised in a paper to never arrive, only to be flipped into some commercial offering only the ultra wealthy can afford. So I’m taking the stance of “I don’t believe you unless there’s a runtime or source code” because it’s too easy with AI to fake the claim.
Even provided code is poorly documented and rarely works on a machine other than the author's.
One common phrase is.
"Data is available from the authors upon reasonable request"
Try doing that for any paper older than 18 months.
All it does it contribute to the replication crisis.