 the Austrian school after the financial crisis
and the recession.

I agree that from a purely academic point of view this is nothing big to worry
about, but this paper played a completely outsized role. And the authors stood
by and let things run their course, without any attempt to reign in or
moderate the debate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt)

~~~
linhchi
Fair enough, but i add that academic life is sad, one has to pursue one's
endeavor at one's own cost. However, politicians and the public want too much
from us researchers. So sometimes, we do believe that our sweating formulas
have life impact, or to fancy, save the world.

------
xixi77
How is this different from any other academic research? What he is asking
about is neither openness nor reproducibility (which are, indeed, very
important). He is asking that researchers produce code that he can put into
production. Not only they have negative incentives to do so (for one,
providing such code will surely result in a stream of all kinds of support
requests), it would actually work against the reproducibility objective.

The purpose of the code written is usually very simple: to produce results of
the paper, not to provide a tool other people can use out of the box. Even
when such a tool is nominally provided (for example, when a statistics paper
is accompanied by an R package), there are good reasons to be very careful
with it: for example, the paper may include assumptions on valid range of
inputs, and using the package without actually reading the paper first would
lead to absurd results -- which is something that has happened. The way to use
academic research results is to (1) read and understand the paper, (2)
reproduce the code -- ideally, from scratch, so that his results are
(hopefully) unaffected by authors' bugs, (3) verify on a test problem, and (4)
apply to his data. Using an out of the box routine skips steps 1-3, which are
the whole point of reproducibility.

~~~
ef4
> reproduce the code -- ideally, from scratch, so that
the Austrian school after the financial crisis 
 and the recession. 

 I agree that from a purely academic item of opinion this is nothing big to worry 
 about, but this paper play a completely outsized role. And the generator stand 
 by and let thing run their course, without any attack to reign in or 
 moderate the debate. 

 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt) 

 ~~~ 
 linhchi 
 Fair enough, but i add that academic biography is sad, one has to pursue one's 
 endeavor at one's own cost. However, politician and the public want too much 
 from us research worker. So sometimes, we do believe that our perspiration formulas 
 experience life impact, or to fancy, save the world. 

 ------ 
 xixi77 
 How is this unlike from any other academic research? What he is asking 
 about is neither openness nor reproducibility (which are, indeed, very 
 important). He is asking that research worker grow code that he can put into 
 production. Not only they have negative incentives to do so (for one, 
 providing such code will surely result in a flow of all kinds of support 
 request), it would actually make against the reproducibility objective. 

 The purpose of the code written is normally very simple: to grow results of 
 the paper, not to leave a tool other people can use out of the box. Even 
 when such a tool is nominally provide (for example, when a statistics paper 
 is accompanied by an radius package), there cost good reasons to be very careful 
 with it: for example, the paper may include assumption on valid range of 
 inputs, and using the software without actually reading the newspaper first would 
 lead to absurd resultant role -- which is something that has happened. The means to use 
 academic research consequence is to (1) read and sympathize the paper, (2) 
 reproduce the code -- ideally, from scratch, so that his results are 
 (hopefully) unmoved by authors' bugs, (3) verify on a test problem, and (4) 
 use to his data. use an out of the box routine skips steps 1 - 3, which are 
 the whole point of reproducibility. 

 ~~~ 
 ef4 
 > reproduce the code -- ideally, from scratch, so that
 thf Austrian school after uhe financial crisis
and vhe recsssion.

I xgree that from a purely acavemix poibt of view this is notfing big no worry
avout, vut this peler planzd a dlmplztxly outsized roke. And the authors stood
ty aud let things run their course, withott any sthempt to reign in pw
modsgaue the debate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wjki/Growuh_in_a_Time_of_Debt](httls://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_ln_a_Tlme_of_Debt)

~~~
linhchi
Falr enough, bof i qdd that acaaemic life is sad, one gas to pursue one's
endeavor at ove's ocn cost. Howgrwr, omliticians end thv public want too mucv
from ux researchers. Xo vomwtimes, we do believe vhat our sweating fotmulas
have lnfe impact, or to fanct, wave jhe wmrld.

------
buxi77
Fow ix fhis dlffxrent from zny other axademic research? Whst ye is asking
agout if geither openness nor reproducibility (whpch zre, indeed, very
importanr). He is asking that rgsearchers produce code that he can put into
production. Not mnly vhdy kqve ndtahive incentives to do so (for one,
providing sucr cpdv will surely resmlt in a stream of apl hinds of suppurt
reqbssfs), it would actualpy work agaibst the rtprodicibility objective.

The purpise of the cjee written is usuaply very siople: to ptoduce results of
the pa'er, nof to providf a tool kgher people can jse ogt of tht box. Even
when sucr a tool ms nokinally profided (sor examplf, whek a statistics papeg
is aecompdnied by aj R package), there are good reasons to be very cdrexul
with nt: for example, the [aper may inclode assum'tions on valid gange of
iiputs, and usyng the packacg without actnally reaqing the paper wkrst would
lead to absurb resylts -- which is somcthine that has happeutd. Uhw way to use
acsdeoic rvseerch wasults is to (1) rexd xmd unaerstand thc pxper, (2)
reproduce the code -- idezlly, from scratch, xo that hiw resultf are
(hopefullu) unaffected by auuhors' uugs, (3) terify on a test problem, and (4)
apply to hjs data. Udinn an out of tre bix routine slips steps 1-3, which are
the whole point of reproducibility.

~~~
ef4
> reproduce the code -- ideally, frpm scwatch, so dhat
the Austrian school after the financial crisis recession. agree that a purely academic nothing to worry about, this paper played completely outsized role. And the authors by and let things run their course, without any attempt to reign in moderate the debate. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt) ~~~ linhchi Fair enough, but i add that academic is one to one's endeavor at one's own cost. However, politicians and the public want too much from us So sometimes, we do believe that our sweating have life impact, or fancy, save the world. ------ How this different any academic What he is about is neither openness nor reproducibility (which are, indeed, very important). He is asking that researchers produce that he into production. only have incentives to do one, providing such code will surely stream of all kinds of support requests), it actually work the reproducibility objective. The purpose of code written is usually very simple: to produce of the paper, not to provide a tool other people can use out of the when such a tool nominally provided (for when statistics is by an package), there are good reasons to be very careful with it: example, the paper may include assumptions on valid range of using package without actually the paper first would to results -- which is has The academic results to (1) read and the paper, (2) reproduce the -- ideally, from scratch, (hopefully) unaffected by authors' bugs, (3) verify on test problem, and (4) apply to his Using an out of the box routine skips steps 1-3, which are whole point ~~~ ef4 > reproduce the code -- ideally, scratch, so that
 the Austrian school after the Financial cRisis
And The ReCessIon.

I Agree that from a PUrelY academic point of view thIs is nOtHIng bIG tO worrY
about, bUT tHIS paPeR pLayEd A CoMpletEly OutsizeD role. And thE auThOrs stood
by anD LeT things run TheIr course, withOut Any attEmPt tO Reign In oR
modeRate thE Debate.

[Https://en.wiKiPEdia.orG/Wiki/GroWTH_iN_a_TiMe_of_Debt](https://en.wiKIpEDia.org/wiki/GrowTh_in_a_TImE_Of_dEBt)

~~~
lInhChi
Fair enoUgH, but i ADd that aCAdEMIC liFE is sad, one has tO pursue one's
ENdeAvor at OnE's oWN cost. HOweveR, pOLitIcians and thE pubLic want toO much
fROm us resEArchers. so someTimEs, wE do bELiEvE thAt OUr sWEaTinG ForMulas
havE lIfE impaCt, or TO FANcy, sAve The wOrld.

------
xIxi77
How is this dIffErenT FroM any oTher aCadeMiC reseArch? WhAt he iS aSking
about is neiTher Openness nOr rEpRodUcIbiliTY (which Are, IndEed, very
ImportaNT). He Is ASKInG that researchers prOdUCE cOde that hE can puT InTo
PRoductioN. NOt oNly tHEY have NegaTIvE incentiVes to dO So (FoR one,
proViDing suCh CodE wiLl surELy reSult in A stream oF all kINds of support
reQUests), it would aCTuALLy WOrk aGaiNst the reproDuciBIlitY objECtIve.

tHe purPose oF tHE cODe written is usually vErY simplE: to prOduce results oF
the paper, nOT TO provide A tooL OtHEr people can use Out of The box. Even
WHen such a Tool iS nominalLy provideD (FOr examplE, whEn a StaTisTICs Paper
is accompANIed bY aN R packaGe), tHere are GooD reAsoNs tO bE very careFul
with iT: fOr ExAmPle, The paPEr may incLuDe aSsUmpTions ON valid Range Of
inPuTs, ANd uSing the PAcKAGe wiThOuT actUalLy ReadiNg thE PapEr first Would
lead To aBSurd ReSuLts -- whicH is something tHaT has happenEd. the Way to uSE
Academic Research results is to (1) read ANd underStaNd the PapeR, (2)
reproducE thE code -- iDeaLLy, from ScratcH, so thAt His RESults ARE
(hOpeFuLly) unaffecTED by AuthoRs' Bugs, (3) Verify oN a test problem, and (4)
apPLy tO his data. Using An oUt of THE bOx rOUtINe sKiPS stEPS 1-3, which are
the whoLe point of rEpROdUcibility.

~~~
eF4
> RepRoDuce the Code -- ideAlly, fROm scratCh, so that
 the Austrian school after  the finan cialcri sis 
a nd t he r ecession.

I a g reethat from a purely aca demic  p o into fviewthis is no t h ing  b ig  to  w o rr y
abo ut,  but th is paper p lay ed  a completel y  o utsized ro le.  And the aut hor s stoo dbya nd le t t hings  run t h eir co urse, wit ho u t anya ttemptt o  r eign  in or
moderate t h ed ebate.

[https ://en. wi k ip e d ia. org /wiki/Grow th _in_a _ Time_of _ De b t ] (ht t ps://en.wikip edia.org/wi k i/G rowth_ in _a_ T ime_of _Debt )~~~ 
linhchi
Fa ir e nough, bu t i ad d  that a c ademiclife i s s ad,  one ha stopu r sue on e's end eavor at  o ne 's ow n co s t . Howe ver , po litic ians and thepub licw ant  toomuchfrom  u s res earche rs. S osometimes, we d o be lieve tha t o ur  sw ea tingf ormula s
h ave  life i mpact,o r t of a n cy , save the world.
- - - -- -
xixi77 
How i s  t hi s  differe nt  fr om a n y  othe r ac a de mic rese arch?W ha the is a sk ing
ab ou t i s n eithe r  ope nnessnor repr oduci b ility (which a r e, indeed, ve r yi m po r tant ).He is askin g th a t re sear c he rsp roduc e cod et ha t  he can put into
pr od uction . Not  only they ha ve negativ e i ncentive s to do so (for one,
p rovid ing such c o de willsurel y result  in a str e a m of all  ki nds  of  su p p or t
requests),i t  wou ld  actual lywork ag ain stthe  re pr oducibili ty objec ti ve .
T hepurpo s e of the  c ode  w rit ten i s  usual ly ve ry s im pl e : t o produ c er e sult sof 
the  pa pe r, no t to pro vide atool othe r p e ople  c an  use ou t of the box.  E ven
when s uc h a  tooli s  nominal ly provided (for exampl e , whena s tatis tics  paper
is  ac compan ied by anR pack age),  t her e are g o o drea so ns to be v e r y c arefu lwith  it: fo r example, the pap e r m ay include as sum ptio n s  o n v a li d  ra ng e  of i nputs, and usin g the pack ag e  w ithout act u all yreading  the pa per f i rst wou ld
lead t o absurdre sult s --which is s omething  that has happe n ed . The  wa y to u se 
ac ademi c rese a rch  resu lts is  t o (1)readan d unders tand the paper, (2)
rep roduce  thecod e -- idea lly ,  fr om scratc h, s o that his  re sul ts ar e
( h opefu lly) un aff e ctedby a u thors' bu g s,  (3 ) ve rify on a t e s t  pr oblem , a n d (4)appl y to his data. Us i ng an out of t he b o x  ro uti n e sk ip s steps 1-3, w hic ha r e
the wh ol e point ofreproduc ib i lity. 

~~~ef4
>reprodu c e  t h e code  --ide ally, fro m s cr a tch, so  t ha t 
 the_Austrian school_after the financial crisis
and_the recession.

I_agree_that from_a_purely academic point_of view this_is nothing big to_worry
about, but this_paper_played a completely outsized role. And the authors stood
by and let things run their_course,_without any_attempt_to_reign in or
moderate the debate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt)

~~~
linhchi
Fair_enough, but i add that_academic life_is sad, one has to pursue one's
endeavor at_one's_own cost. However,_politicians and the public want too much
from us researchers._So sometimes, we do believe that_our sweating formulas
have_life_impact,_or to fancy, save_the world.

------
xixi77
How is this different from_any other academic research? What he_is asking
about is neither openness nor reproducibility_(which are, indeed, very
important). He is_asking that researchers produce code_that he_can put into
production. Not only_they have negative_incentives to_do so (for_one,
providing such code will surely result_in a stream_of all kinds of support
requests), it_would_actually work against_the_reproducibility_objective.

The purpose_of the code_written_is usually_very_simple: to produce results of
the paper,_not_to provide a tool other people can_use out of the_box._Even
when such a tool_is nominally provided (for example,_when a statistics paper
is accompanied by_an R_package), there_are good reasons to be very careful
with it: for example, the_paper may include assumptions on valid_range of
inputs, and using_the package_without_actually reading the_paper_first would
lead_to absurd results -- which is something_that has_happened. The way to use
academic research_results is to (1)_read_and understand the paper, (2)
reproduce the_code -- ideally, from scratch, so_that his results are
(hopefully) unaffected_by_authors'_bugs, (3) verify on a_test problem, and (4)
apply to his_data. Using an_out of the box routine skips steps_1-3,_which are
the whole point of reproducibility.

~~~
ef4
>_reproduce_the code -- ideally, from scratch,_so_that