publishing models

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

publishing models

Charles Lassiter
Hi all,

I received feedback during peer review asking for an appendix containing
the code for my model. In the paper itself, I follow the ODD protocol from
Grimm, et al (2006, 2010). I don't recall having seen papers with code
published as an appendix. Is this the norm or becoming the norm?

Thanks,
Charlie

--
Charles Lassiter
Philosophy Department
Gonzaga University
502 E. Boone Avenue
Box AD 47
Spokane, WA 99258
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: publishing models

Marco Janssen-2
Hi Charlie,

More and more journals and especially reviewers and sponsors start to expect code being made available. In fact Nature mentioned last week that code of computational studies will get peer reviewed (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02741-4). Having it in an appendix in a journal might not be the best idea. More useful is to have public repositories that provide DOI such as https://www.comses.net/codebases/<https://comses.net/codebases/>; https://osf.io/; https://zenodo.org or https://figshare.com

Marco


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:59 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [netlogo-users] publishing models


Hi all,

I received feedback during peer review asking for an appendix containing the code for my model. In the paper itself, I follow the ODD protocol from Grimm, et al (2006, 2010). I don't recall having seen papers with code published as an appendix. Is this the norm or becoming the norm?

Thanks,
Charlie

--
Charles Lassiter
Philosophy Department
Gonzaga University
502 E. Boone Avenue
Box AD 47
Spokane, WA 99258