Your comment appears to be about the article but you seem unable to do so without focusing on yourself. It was all going fine until you wrote "I had not seen before". How is it relevant whether you had seen it before or not? In all, you make four references to yourself and your feelings in this comment. What egregious self-promotion! /sarcasm
You have to think of Mathematica code as a specification of what your science does. As long as the expected output of the function is clearly defined, then your work is replicatable/verifiable (with enough effort) which makes it good science. I am much more concerned about occaisional places where the documentation of Mathematica is poor, than whether the soruce is viewable.
Open Source is just the ultimately precise but horribly inconvenient documetnation.
Fair enough. Perhaps my issue more correctly lies in the close-to absolute trust some of my colleagues have for mathematica.
Since mathematica is so much faster and feature rich people use it and only very occasionally is it verified by some other software. I would prefer, and would make things easier and faster, if we had (verifiable code) + (one result), instead of (no code) + (one result) + (independent check of result), since only rarely one bothers/have the time to make the independent check. In some cases there is no option to make an independent check (e.g. "with enough effort" is usually too much effort).
