[musicale]

It's really disappointing that technical societies like the ACM and IEEE haven't done this already.

For many journals and conferences there isn't even a way to submit the code or other digital artifacts with the PDF. A few have badging for whether digital artifacts are provided and whether the results have been reproduced or repeated by others - steps in the right direction at least.

As much as I intensely dislike their practices of overcharging for journals and milking digital library subscriptions to fund administrative overhead, the technical societies are technically non-profits and exist to serve their members and the research and professional community. This is really something they should be doing.

[seoaeu]

> A few have badging for whether digital artifacts are provided and whether the results have been reproduced or repeated by others - steps in the right direction at least.

This part really downplays the considerable resources (ie time contributed by unpaid volunteers) required to do artifact evaluation.

[d110af5ccf]

It seems like you should be able to include more or less arbitrary binary artifacts as a form of supplemental information provided the peer reviewers skim and sign off on it and it fits within some size limit.

[zoomablemind]

> ...For many journals and conferences there isn't even a way to submit the code or other digital artifacts with the PDF.

Why not to stuff it into a repo and reference it in the text?

Of course, a central location within a stable institution helps with continuity of availability of such repo. But at least this gives you some control over it.

[physicsguy]

Zenodo is better because you get a DOI for the code + data that way

[pwr-electronics]

I don't know if they necessarily should. It's easy enough to post your own supporting materials online. But it doesn't fit the publisher's mission of keeping a timeless paper trail of ideas.