In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether or not code sharing should be mandatory for scientific publications. Scientific programming is an increasingly prevalent tool in research. However, there are not unified guidelines for code availability requirements. Some journals require code sharing. Others require code descriptions. Yet others have no policies around code sharing. The Pro side presented here argues that code sharing should be mandatory for all scientific publications involving code. This Pro argument comes in 2 parts. First, any defensible reason for not sharing code is an equally valid a reason for the manuscript itself not being published. Second, lack of code sharing requirements creates 2 tiers of science: one where reproducibility is required and one where it is not. Additionally, the Pro authors suggest that a debate over code sharing is itself a decade out-of-date due to the emerging availability of containerization and virtual environment sharing software. The Pro argument concludes with an appeal that authors release code to make their work more understandable by other researchers. The Con side presented here argues that computer source codes of medical technology equipment should not be subject to mandatory public disclosure. The source code is a crucial part of what makes a particular device unique and allows that device to outperform its competition. The Con authors believe that public disclosure of this proprietary information would destroy all incentives for businesses to develop new and improved technologies. Competition in the free marketplace is what drives companies to constantly improve their products, to develop new and better medical devices. The open disclosure of these “trade secret” details would effectively end that competitive drive. Why invest time, money, and energy developing a “better mousetrap” if your competitors can copy it and produce it the next day?

在这篇 Pro-Con 评论文章中，我们讨论了科学出版物是否应该强制共享代码。科学编程是研究中越来越流行的工具。但是，对于代码可用性要求没有统一的指导方针。一些期刊需要代码共享。其他需要代码描述。还有一些人没有关于代码共享的政策。这里提出的 Pro 方面认为，对于所有涉及代码的科学出版物，代码共享应该是强制性的。这个 Pro 论点分为两部分。首先，任何不共享代码的正当理由都是手稿本身不被发表的正当理由。其次，缺乏代码共享要求创造了两层科学：一层需要可重复性，另一层不需要。此外，Pro 作者认为，由于容器化和虚拟环境共享软件的新兴可用性，关于代码共享的辩论本身已经过时了十年。Pro 论点最后呼吁作者发布代码以使其他研究人员更容易理解他们的工作。这里提出的反对方认为，医疗技术设备的计算机源代码不应强制公开披露。源代码是使特定设备独一无二并允许该设备超越其竞争对手的关键部分。骗子的作者认为，公开披露这些专有信息将破坏企业开发新技术和改进技术的所有动力。自由市场的竞争是推动公司不断改进产品的动力，开发新的更好的医疗器械。公开披露这些“商业秘密”细节将有效地结束这种竞争。如果您的竞争对手可以复制并在第二天生产出来，为什么还要投入时间、金钱和精力来开发“更好的捕鼠器”？