Hacker News Reader

> A few have badging for whether digital artifacts are provided and whether the results have been reproduced or repeated by others - steps in the right direction at least.

This part really downplays the considerable resources (ie time contributed by unpaid volunteers) required to do artifact evaluation.

It seems like you should be able to include more or less arbitrary binary artifacts as a form of supplemental information provided the peer reviewers skim and sign off on it and it fits within some size limit.

> ...For many journals and conferences there isn't even a way to submit the code or other digital artifacts with the PDF.

Why not to stuff it into a repo and reference it in the text?

Of course, a central location within a stable institution helps with continuity of availability of such repo. But at least this gives you some control over it.

Zenodo is better because you get a DOI for the code + data that way

I don't know if they necessarily should. It's easy enough to post your own supporting materials online. But it doesn't fit the publisher's mission of keeping a timeless paper trail of ideas.