is often more. The reader deserves and needs better.
-
-
notwithstanding, I completely agree with you that it's very hard to parse for non experts in exactly those methods.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
agreed methods could be better written, but if the code is open (and well documented), then surely there's no problem?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
it's a huge problem to expect people to have to run your code to understand /trust your analysis in my opinion
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
open code is great but not a replacement to good explanation/writing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
agreed. But we all have limitations. I'm just saying that those limitations can be mitigated by making code open
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
not convinced. I actually wrote a paper on exactly why that's the worst idea
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
with a co author who's very thoughtful with respect to this and not on twitter the short version is that code can't be in
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
lieu of specification for a model or a theory because code is not the central scientific thing being discussed the model
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
is so that must be specified in the paper.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I would hate to be in a field where reviews didn't understand the methods and had to glance at code or even run it just to
-
-
understand the big picture.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
that being said I'm all for open code and running of code which is what we do at
@ReScienceEds0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.