>paper published without an electronic supplement containing a reproducibility guideHow are 99.999% of papers still like this in 2026?
>>17013178The reproduction guide is called "methodology" and it's usually at the start of the paper.
>>17013178I blame the pajeets and Modi.
>>17014562>"Methodology" is just a pretentious way of saying "Method"actually its an incorrect way of saying method so that guy is a retard, and you too kinda but I like your attitude so Ill ignore that part
>>17013178every paper that exists is a guide through the "reproducability" because that's part of the validation process. Not sure what you want exactly, or how you arrived to this concerntroll information
>>17014997>you want to verify our work>you must be trollingSAD. MANY SUCH CASES.
>>17017401Dark gravity was discovered by blacks thousands of years ago. Newton was white and stole it and that is why it never turned out quite right.
>>17013178>Write theory paper>Write entire section on the assumptions and limits applied and the substitutions I went through to get the model. Post a copy of the key parts of my derivation in the digital appendices, but don't include every single step.>BUT YOU DIDN'T POST EVERY SINGLE STEP!! HOW IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO REPRODUCE THIS WORK!?Shut up and calculate.>Write computational paper>Write entire section on the models and algorithms I used and justify why I did X instead of Y or why A was used to simplify B. Post a copy of my code in the digital appendices, but not every single file it generated.>BUT YOU DIDN'T POST EVERY SINGLE DATA FILE!! HOW IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO REPRODUCE THIS WORK!?Shut up and simulate.>Write experimental paper>Write entire section on what hardware was used, what experimental parameters were used, diagrams and photos of the setup, diagrams and photos of all the diagnostics along with details on size, materials, circuit diagrams, diagrams and photos of the interior of the experiment with the regions of interest highlighted, a discussion of what methods and models were applied to get any calculated values, discussion of all my sources of systematic and random error in the calculations. Post supplemental figures in the digital appendices, including cartoons showing how data is being fit along with an example case.>BUT YOU DIDN'T POST THE RAW DATA!! HOW IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO REPRODUCE THIS WORK!?Shut up and experiment.
bump, the question is a good one.
>>17029441>noooo you can't publish a paper unless it's 100% reproducible by my machine I want your work to be fully open to me so I can steal your expertise or I won't publish itno it's not, OP is a newborn who doesn't know how science reporting works and has worked for decades
>>17029539The majority of people bitching about labs not sharing their raw data are jeets and chinks champing at the bit for free data to reprocess for their paper mill submissions.
