I'm with Dave on this one. It's really journals that are in one of the best positions (along with funding agencies) to require and enforce standards of data and software archiving. That said, they are actually not strong when acting in isolation, because authors then can easily evade archival and sharing requirements by going to another journal, to the detriment of the journal(s) with the stricter rules. What's needed is a broad consortium of bioinformatics journals agreeing on and enacting software archiving requirements in unison, similar to the consortium of evolution journals that jointly enacted the Joint Data Archiving Policy (http://datadryad.org/pages/jdap).
Having a rant to myself. The article says
"We have incorporated this model into a user-friendly R package available on the authors’ websites."
No link to the website of course in the paper, I found it after Googling, although I could only find a link of one of the two authors' websites. Why does #biomedcentral  think it is appropriate to allow authors to vaguely archive their own software? This is something that should have been in supp info, or else in a BioMedCentral GitHub where it cannot disappear. Maybe I just haven't seen it but are the specific versions of software mentioned? Can I really reproduce this? Aaargh. 
I blame #BioMedCentral  primarily, this is sloppy publishing.
#openscience  
Shared publiclyView activity