Re: [OT - or may be not] The case for open computer programs
If you have 15$ left have you read the Nature paper, then you could also
read less particular about details "version" of the same thing from Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6078/159.full
Research Priorities
Shining Light into Black Boxes
A. Morin, J. Urban, P. D. Adams, I. Foster, A. Sali, D. Baker, P. Sliz,*
The publication and open exchange of knowledge and material form the backbone
of scientific progress and reproducibility and are obligatory for publicly
funded research. Despite increasing reliance on computing in every domain of
scientific endeavor, the computer source code critical to understanding and
evaluating computer programs is commonly withheld, effectively rendering these
programs “black boxes” in the research work flow. Exempting from basic
publication and disclosure standards such a ubiquitous category of research
tool carries substantial negative consequences. Eliminating this disparity will
require concerted policy action by funding agencies and journal publishers, as
well as changes in the way research institutions receiving public funds manage
their intellectual property (IP).
and publicly available press-release for it from Scientific American:
"Secret Computer Code Threatens Science"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secret-computer-code-threatens-science
Meanwhile we can just keep going forward making it all possible ;)
Cheers,
On Tue, 29 May 2012, Oz Nahum Tiram wrote:
> Hi All,
> Indeed strong words, published in Nature where you need to pay $32 to
> read what we all know already.
> Regards,
> Oz
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > you might like to read:
> > The case for open computer programs
> > Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton & John Graham-Cumming
> > 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.
> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html
> > Kind regards
> > Andreas.
> > --
> > http://fam-tille.de
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> > Archive: [🔎] 20120529060057.GC18760@an3as.eu">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20120529060057.GC18760@an3as.eu
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Reply to: