Skip to main content
Academia

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 2
    "the most effective approach is not releasing it publicly until after review," <-- too late
    – David Roberts
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 21:59
  • 1
    @DavidRoberts I saw. I included that second paragraph more for anyone that might stumble on this question in the future
    – anjama
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 0:42
  • 1
    If the authors are given, though separate means, access to an anonymized copy of the code, why should a public release of the code also be avoided?
    – cjs
    Commented Aug 10, 2019 at 4:26
  • 2
    @CurtJ.Sampson If the reviewers need to do a web search for a term or concept in the paper, documentation in the repository could put in it the search results, especially if it is a specialized area of research. Alternatively, a reviewer might want to see what other work has been done and make sure the paper is properly citing it. Finally, a reviewer might search for the code itself to ensure that someone else hasn't published the code (to ensure that it is original work, and not plagiarized code/violating a copyright)
    – anjama
    Commented Aug 10, 2019 at 11:22
  • Having both a record of submission, along with putting the code into a public git repository (even if the code is not yet public), ideally preserves the authors' timing. It is possible to arbitrarily set timestamps in git, but the public repo should have its own accounting for the repository. Additionally, one can make public just the latest or a series of commit hashes or another checksum of the codebase.
    – ti7
    Commented Aug 13, 2019 at 16:24