Cool ideas. We will probably end up with a better world if someone implements them, but I would argue that these "agile" things are much less important in scientific publications than in software development. Science and technology are different.
Software artifacts are huge and uncontrollable. Today it is very rare for a software developer to know all the ins and outs of a software he/she develops, along with all its dependencies. There is simply way too much code, and it is impossible to control them manually.
On the other hand, scientific papers tend to contain very few core ideas. It is still reasonable today for a researcher to understand everything he/she publishes, along with every idea in all the papers he/she cites. Once you get the core idea, you get the whole paper. They merely act as mediums for conveying ideas and there are not that many of them. Often you can just "manage" them with your own brain.
Anyway, I resonate with the first few paragraphs about retraction a lot. It is frustrating to read a paper for a whole day, find out that it is wrong, and that someone already refuted it in another paper :-/
What about scientific papers that depend on software artifacts?
Either scientists somehow understands all the "ins and outs of a software he/she develops, along with all its dependencies" in order to publish a paper, where a programmer doesn't have the same understanding, or you are comparing two entirely different concepts as if they were the same.
Software artifacts are huge and uncontrollable. Today it is very rare for a software developer to know all the ins and outs of a software he/she develops, along with all its dependencies. There is simply way too much code, and it is impossible to control them manually.
On the other hand, scientific papers tend to contain very few core ideas. It is still reasonable today for a researcher to understand everything he/she publishes, along with every idea in all the papers he/she cites. Once you get the core idea, you get the whole paper. They merely act as mediums for conveying ideas and there are not that many of them. Often you can just "manage" them with your own brain.
Anyway, I resonate with the first few paragraphs about retraction a lot. It is frustrating to read a paper for a whole day, find out that it is wrong, and that someone already refuted it in another paper :-/