[cpearce]

This won't fly in the real world. If an academic writer includes a link to their code in their paper, when it goes through peer review before being published, it will no longer under be a blind review; the reviewer will know who wrote the code by virtue of the github account or domain it's uploaded to. Blind reviews are important, as if you know you're reviewing a paper by someone who rejected your paper, you're more inclined to reject it. That really happens, people are that petty.

Additionally there's the risk that the reviewer will reject the paper, and download the code and publish a paper about it quickly in some other journal/conference.

[xyzzyz]

Your counterpoints are irrelevant. You can obviously attach code to the article, so that there's no need to include any link or other similar thing. If a reviewer wants to do the thing you described, the actual possession of the code is not a big help for him -- what actually keeps him from doing that is honesty, decency and the respect he has among his colleagues he would instantenously lose.

[pwaring]

Why not just fill in the link after review but before publication? Presumably that happens with other information which identifies authors, such as their names and email addresses.

Although 'blind' reviewing is something of a misnomer in small research fields where the reviewer can probably guess at least one of the authors.

[andreasvc]

Solution: you anonymize the link for peer-review, and only include the real link in the final version. This way the code is not peer-reviewed of course, but peer review can look at the pseudo-code given in the paper.

Your last point really has nothing to do with given away code, nor with peer review: you can plagiarize just about anything. This generally doesn't happen because scientists care a lot about giving credit and recognizing priority.