Ed Hawkins points us to this paper, reporting a seminar on uncertainty. Specific issues considered are choice of statistical methods and openness in that regard. One possibility that was discussed was whether codes should be made available:
One obvious way to facilitate auditability and reproducibility is with provision of codes which operate on the raw measurement inputs to produce data products. Even in this relatively small subset of participants there was a wide range of perspectives regarding code provision. Some are willing to provide code, although there is doubt whether code alone will explain methodologies and whether external users can simply copy code and reproduce results. Although code provision can directly explain what and how analysis was done, it may be silent on why the particular methodology and implementation was selected. Some agencies have extremely strict requirements for code release, insisting on near commercial-grade quality, which most researchers do not have the time or resources to develop. Therefore, code release is not a feasible option under these conditions. Another subset of statisticians feel that it is better to provide inputs and outputs to interested parties. Supplying (non-peer-reviewed) code can be a dangerous practice, while leaving it to the user to develop the code and reproduce results independently encourages thought and engagement by the potential user. In this replication of results, real scientific value is realized through the analysis of structural uncertainty.
Oh well.