Timeline for Double blind peer review when paper cites author's GitHub repo for code
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2019 at 16:24 | comment | added | ti7 | 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. | |
| S Aug 11, 2019 at 10:04 | history | suggested | NelsonGon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Formatting fix
|
| Aug 10, 2019 at 15:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 11, 2019 at 10:04 | |||||
| Aug 10, 2019 at 11:22 | comment | added | anjama | @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) | |
| Aug 10, 2019 at 4:26 | comment | added | cjs | 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? | |
| Aug 9, 2019 at 0:42 | comment | added | anjama | @DavidRoberts I saw. I included that second paragraph more for anyone that might stumble on this question in the future | |
| Aug 8, 2019 at 21:59 | comment | added | David Roberts | "the most effective approach is not releasing it publicly until after review," <-- too late | |
| Aug 8, 2019 at 18:09 | history | answered | anjama | CC BY-SA 4.0 |