Hacker News Reader

Comment by j7ake | Hacker News Reader

So it’s okay now to publish a computational paper with no code? I guess Nature’s reporting standards don’t apply to everyone.

> A condition of publication in a Nature Portfolio journal is that authors are required to make materials, data, code, and associated protocols promptly available to readers without undue qualifications.

> Authors must make available upon request, to editors and reviewers, any previously unreported custom computer code or algorithm used to generate results that are reported in the paper and central to its main claims.

https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/r...

View on HN

Nature has long been willing to break its own rules to be at the forefront of publishing new science.

Are you an editor or reviewer?

If you read the standards it applies broadly beyond reviewers or editors.

That's a much better rule!

Good question.

Also makes me wonder -- where's the line? Is it reasonable to have "layperson" reviewers? Is it reasonable to think that regular citizens could review such content?

I think you will find that for the vast, vast majority of scientific papers there is significant negative expected value to even attempting to have layperson reviewers. Bear in mind that we're talking about papers written by experts in a specific field aimed at highly technical communication with other people who are experts in the same field. As a result, the only people who can usefully review the materials are drawn from those who are also experts in the same field.

For an instructive example, look up the seminal paper on the structure of DNA: https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick... Ask yourself how useful comments from someone who did not know what an X-ray is, never mind anything about organic chemistry, would be in improving the quality of research or quality of communication between experts in both fields.

No, infact most journals have peer reviews cordoned off, not viewable to the general public.

That's pre-publication review, not scientific peer review. Special interests try to conflate the two, to bypass peer review and transform science into a religion.

Peer review properly refers to the general process of science advancing by scientists reviewing each other's published work.

Publishing a work is the middle, not the end of the research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com