Very Nice, 

It is like doing science again.   :-)

This is yet another illustration of why Journal should NOT be taking the liberty of skipping the VERIFICATION of REPRODUCIBILITY, as part of the review process.

Peer-review is useless and dishonest when it does not include an actual verification of reproducibility.

It is very disappointing to see how the large majority of Journals and Conferences are satisfied with the mediocrity of doing peer-review based on opinions, instead of practicing Science honestly and demanding the verification of reproducility as part of the review process of every publication.

On the bright side, at least, a handful of Journals are doing real science by embracing the Reproducibility Initiative of the Science Exchange
https://www.scienceexchange.com/reproducibility

Everybody else, should be ashamed of publishing, reviewing or citing any paper that has not been replicated. Such mediocrity should not be associated with the scientific endeavor.

For those who care about actual scientific work, (e.g. REPRODUCIBLE), you may find interesting the upcoming workshop on:

"Reproducibility in Computational and Experimental Mathematics" 

http://icerm.brown.edu/tw12-5-rcem


   Luis