I sometimes come across ArXiv papers where the authors claim the source code for the project discussed can be obtained, but on checking the link provided the source code comprises no more than a place holder. So the code is not available, and on subsequent checking months later (in case the authors were in a rush to publish the paper before the code was quite ready to release) the code is still unavailable.

Now I understand there is no obligation to provide source code with commercial potential, unless maybe the project was subsidized with public funds. But what do authors have to gain by claiming it is available when it is not actually available?


There is no advantage to claiming the source code is available and then not doing that. All it will achieve is irritating the really interested readers.

The most likely reason is it’s a simple mistake. Something like they wanted to do that but forgot. Or other reasons, maybe department policies came up that prevented the author from doing that. Or maybe the author found another more suitable place to publish the code and forgot to update the link in the paper. Or...

The simplest solution is to contact the author directly.

  • 8
    or, LaTeX mangled the link, since it contained a tilde character, a percent character or something similar... lots of stupid issues can be blamed on technology. – Per Alexandersson Oct 17 '20 at 19:50
  • 2
    There is an obvious and self-evident advantage, which is that the paper gets into a journal mandating open data, without actually making your data open. Contrary to what might be projected many, many scientists see advantage in hiding their data – benxyzzy Oct 18 '20 at 6:52
  • 1
    Or the link just had a typo in it or the author forget to hit "publish" on the source code. – Rob Oct 18 '20 at 13:48
  • @benxyzzy: Is that based on concrete personal experience, and if so, in what field? At least in my field (pure math/theoretical CS — so not much experimental data, but lots of code) I’ve really never seen anyone who seemed to be trying to hide their code. And I don’t think I’m saying that out of idealistic naïvety: I’m aware of plenty of other academic sins happening in my field (plagiarism, ghost authorships, clear and deliberate salami-slicing, and so on), but I’ve never seen anything that seemed like dishonestly/inappropriately hiding code. – PLL Oct 18 '20 at 18:54
  • I've come across machine learning papers with links to Github repos that I cannot access on a not infrequent basis. It's not clear to me why - it could be the owner inadvertently set it private, or have made it private at some stage since the paper was published, or created the repo as a placeholder and never got around to populating it. It's quite frustrating to be honest. – David Waterworth Oct 19 '20 at 2:08

I don't know about arXiv, but on bioarXiv, people will often upload their manuscripts at the same time as they submit them for peer review. People will put in links for data and code that they intend to make available when the peer-reviewed form of the manuscript is published.

Some times this is because they want to protect their data/code until the last possible minute. Other times they tell themselves they'll get round to sorting it out before the peer reviewed form is published, but then forget.

Note: I am saying what happens. I'm definitely not saying this is good or acceptable practice.


Papers which claim availability of source code are more likely to make it into a collection of references that are not actively required for a particular paper. Also some publication guidelines may demand the availability of source code when it is actually necessary for making the paper's claims open to verification.

And that's just for assuming that the dead links are intentional. There is a multitude of reasons of why such information may not end up there essentially. One of the most boring real-life reasons is "the code still needs cleaning up and documentation" since papers are often done under time pressure, and there just are no resources after publicatoin to actually do the actually intended clean-up and documentation.

In that case, contacting the author is your best bet. It may end you with some not-well-usable code. It may end you with some dissatisfactory or no reply at all. But it certainly is the best way to get behind something that you think may be relevant for your further work. And it may be what is needed to make the author invest the effort of making stuff publishable after all: if one feels "nobody is interested anyway", cleaning up stuff for publication will easily end up on the eternal backburner.


I think what they should have written is that "it will be available upon publication". Many people will provide the source code only after the paper is published. It is possible they intended to release the code upon publication, and they may need to get approval from their funding source etc. They should use proper language though.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.