Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 1, 2020 at 10:45 comment added Nikos Kazazakis @dhasson Yeah, and even worse, publishing stuff that requires commercial software to reproduce..!
Jun 30, 2020 at 18:50 comment added dhasson I agree with you on that matter. Even good publications must be reproducible, maybe peer review require detailed explanation of the computational aspects (code or at least pseudocode). For example, I've seen papers where the authors comment a referenced paper wasn't generating the kinds of instances its authors suggested, etc. These phenomena and bad practices introduce lots of noise into research as a whole. Again, the high pressures of academic life (publish or perish) get in the way.
Jun 30, 2020 at 18:20 comment added Nikos Kazazakis @dhasson Problem is, this is not optional. Doing research properly requires good tools. In OR all the basics have been explored which means that the tools available have to keep evolving, and that is now beyond what a couple of bright students can do in a few years. We really see that with the SCIP team, who are the only group in the world capable of publishing the things they do, precisely because they have built a great codebase for research.
Jun 30, 2020 at 16:09 comment added dhasson Agree with your diagnosis and most - if not all - of the points mentioned. However, I'm not sure academia should invest many resources training people on software development or related topics, because 1) many people go on a highly theoretical path and 2) the majority of companies in industry don't contribute data or pay for their research. Unless going to industry is part of the scope for the graduate program/research group, why should they spend valuable time preparing people for skills needed mostly in industry? Apparently this question is no man's land and people tend to learn on their own
Jun 30, 2020 at 10:57 history answered Nikos Kazazakis CC BY-SA 4.0