[SilasX]

So it "saves time for research" in the sense that scientists don't check that the code component operates correctly? In that case, why bother with code at all? Just make up plausible output and no one will look any further.

[timr]

You're making an invalid assumption: "nice code" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for "correct code".

[SilasX]

Where did I make that assumption? I said that scientists aren't checking that the results of the code are in fact correct.

[timr]

If you're concluding that from what I said, then you're making the assumption. Bad code can still be well-tested.

[SilasX]

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant that the reviewers aren't checking that the code is running correctly.

And yes, I'm sure scientists do a bang-up job testing their own code, just like they do a bang-up job validating their own experience, checking their own logic, and criticizing their own experiments.

But the whole point of science is not to trust yourself; to make reproducible what you did. To the extent that you seal off part of the process from this kind of review, you're not doing science, but something else.