Well, I certainly don't agree with your description of what software development entails. You need a text editor, but you also need to be familiar with a whole ecosystem of tools, libraries, platforms, procedures, and general technical knowhow. You need to commit your changes; you also need the project owner to think what you've done is worth merging into the main branch. The suggestion that it's something you can "be amateur about" is making me giggle.
If anything, it's the development behind closed doors that you can "be amateur about". Work done in public is too embarrassing and too unlikely to attract any interest to do a bad job on.
But that's kind of beside the point. Even if the expertise is rarer on research, I don't understand why that matters. Wouldn't that be an argument for pooling the resources you do have? I mean, if there are only four people working in a field, wouldn't it be better if they all could critique a new work, and if they were able to watch it progress and influence its direction (maybe stopping mistakes early!), and if the judgement of a new work came with their written opinions on its worthiness attached?
turns out my original response was eaten by the daft HN 'unknown or expired link' thing.
but in short: It seems you misunderstand me. They both require understanding, but it is easier to effect changes on an OSS project than it is to make an author go back and rewrite or retest their article.
If anything, it's the development behind closed doors that you can "be amateur about". Work done in public is too embarrassing and too unlikely to attract any interest to do a bad job on.
But that's kind of beside the point. Even if the expertise is rarer on research, I don't understand why that matters. Wouldn't that be an argument for pooling the resources you do have? I mean, if there are only four people working in a field, wouldn't it be better if they all could critique a new work, and if they were able to watch it progress and influence its direction (maybe stopping mistakes early!), and if the judgement of a new work came with their written opinions on its worthiness attached?