Timeline for Is pseudocode allowed in *answers*?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20 at 10:28 | comment | added | user272752 | [2/2] If it's shown that the code reviewer could write the entire program so much better than the OP, then the OP should likely begin to consider another line of work... | |
| Aug 20 at 10:24 | comment | added | user272752 | @Reinderien Fully agree that a conscientious academic reviewer may replicate procedures to verify results. Should all go well, this dimension of the review will be little more than a "thumbs-up". If not, the returned review is NOT a paper of its own right. Should the reviewer have a new insight from reviewing another's paper, the reviewer will write their own paper with the intent of contributing something NEW to the field; not a rehash of the paper they reviewed... OTOH, "code review" usually only points to - perhaps illustrates - superior techniques or resources. | |
| Jul 28 at 13:51 | comment | added | Reinderien | Other points aside, Academics don't write their own versions of others' papers is clearly false - result replication is one of the most important categories of scientific research. | |
| Jul 23 at 8:40 | history | answered | user272752 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |