Modern science relies on (open source) software and hardware, but whereas creating tools (writing code) can be turned into academic currency (papers), there is currently no incentive for researchers to provide feedback and improvement suggestions for t...
-
Modern science relies on (open source) software and hardware, but whereas creating tools (writing code) can be turned into academic currency (papers), there is currently no incentive for researchers to provide feedback and improvement suggestions for tools despite how valuable these contributions are to the scientific community as a whole. One possible way forward would be to treat "issue creation" and other Git-based activity as an acceptable form of peer review.
This is an issue and idea I’ve been thinking about for a while. I’d love to flesh it out into an actual set of actionable proposals/suggestions, as well as figuring out which (technological) hurdles would need to be overcome, in a opinion-styled paper - could anyone be interested in working on this together with me?
Please share!