Skip to main content

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.

3
  • 5
    I just strongly disagree with the notion that source code is a secondary contribution. In many cases (not sure about the actual situation of the OP), source code is IMHO the actual scholarship. The devil is in the details, but I would never assume that if someone wrote all the code but no words of the paper, they do not deserve first authorship. For one, it is much easier to recover a paper when you have the source code than to recover source code if you have the paper. Commented Sep 11, 2019 at 11:23
  • 3
    @MartinModrák, sure... I studied CS myself, and in my diploma thesis did some research plus coding - the importance was objectively certainly on an equal footing. I am not saying that the student should get no credit; it just seems to me that OP seems to be afraid to value his own efforts enough... hard to tell over the 'net, OP will know if that fits his bill or not.
    – AnoE
    Commented Sep 11, 2019 at 11:34
  • Paper won’t exist without results from code, admitting that the purpose of implementing the algorithm was to support theoretical claims. By the structure of the paper, results from code implementation does account for at least the Experiments and Setup parts(how you would know that the idea actually does generate a publication without the source code generated results). If was purely a theoretical paper than you wouldn’t need code to generate a publication ....
    – n1tk
    Commented Sep 12, 2019 at 17:15