I just started reading some papers (Computer Science, specifically Computer Vision) and thought "now let's look at the source code" and was quite astonished that most of the papers don't have any source code implementing the described methods to look at, while claiming some performance or being better than other papers.

How do these papers get accepted in journals / conferences? Do people have to submit their source code privately to the reviewers at least, so that they can reproduce the experiment if possible.

Do most journals / conferences just "trust" that people who submit the paper really implemented the theory and got those exact results?

I always had this idea that any experiment should be reproducible by others else it's not scientific justified. Been wondering about this the last few days.


Question: AntiForgeryToken versus Captcha
Answer: To answer a bit more explicitly:


  Do I need to use captcha if I am using AntiForgeryToken in an MVC
  application.


If automated submissions are a problem then yes.


  Does AntiForgeryToken prevents automated form submission?


No. A CSRF token basically ensures that a user visits a page (eg. the one which contains the form) before another action takes place (eg. that form was submitted). A bot could easily obtain a valid token to submit a form.


  Can I use AntiForgeryToken as an alternative to captcha?


No. Arguably a CAPTCHA might be able to replace a CSRF token but a CAPTCHA probably isn't practical on every form which needs CSRF protection (eg. one in an admin panel).