This seems at odds with the statement from the article
"There needs to be a real shift in mindset away from worrying about how to get published in Nature and towards thinking about how to reward work that will be useful to the wider community."
EDIT: What the heck is wrong with this? We have two opinions on the perceived value of programmers in scientific enterprises, one from someone who works in the field (David Gavaghan) and another from Zed Shaw. I'm highlighting that Zed's perception is not universally agreed upon.
This sentence strikes me as astonishingly hypocritical. Nature can immediately do 2 things to make the science they publish vastly more useful to the wider community:
1) Remove the paywall
2) Require publishing the code for computational papers (and the data for experimental papers)
Nature Group only cares about maintaining its status as a high impact factor journal, and scientists sheepishly submit to them. They actually love it that scientists worry about getting published in Nature.
Dont feel too bad. HN has become full of people who believe that the correct response to something they disagree with is to mod down, instead of to reply with a rebuttal. It sucks, but others will mod you up.
"There needs to be a real shift in mindset away from worrying about how to get published in Nature and towards thinking about how to reward work that will be useful to the wider community."
EDIT: What the heck is wrong with this? We have two opinions on the perceived value of programmers in scientific enterprises, one from someone who works in the field (David Gavaghan) and another from Zed Shaw. I'm highlighting that Zed's perception is not universally agreed upon.