Are you saying this based on experience? My assumption was that it was a number of factors.
1. Researchers are often weak coders, and they may be self conscious about their code.
2. My own experience is that researcher code is totally undocument, or broken. I've repeatedly found that the code linked to from a paper has no straightforward way to be built, or appears to have compiler errors etc.
3. It's more work, and researchers have the incentive to put out a compelling paper, not to put out code (because we don't hold them to that standard).
My own experiences have led to me to mostly dismiss papers where I can't find the code or can't get it to build.
I'm setting the bar super low. A `./configure` and a readme with basic info about the project and how to build/run it would be quite exceptional. I don't need them to be triaging github issues and merging in PRs.
1. Researchers are often weak coders, and they may be self conscious about their code.
2. My own experience is that researcher code is totally undocument, or broken. I've repeatedly found that the code linked to from a paper has no straightforward way to be built, or appears to have compiler errors etc.
3. It's more work, and researchers have the incentive to put out a compelling paper, not to put out code (because we don't hold them to that standard).
My own experiences have led to me to mostly dismiss papers where I can't find the code or can't get it to build.