Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Sustainable Research Software Hand-Over

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Issues in Research Software

Sustainable Research Software Hand-Over

Authors:

J. Fehr,

Institute of Engineering and Computational Mechanics, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 9, 70569 Stuttgart, DE
X close

C. Himpe ,

Computational Methods in Systems and Control Theory, Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstr. 1, 39106 Magdeburg, DE
X close

S. Rave,

Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics, University of Münster, Einsteinstrasse 62, 48149 Münster, DE
X close

J. Saak

Computational Methods in Systems and Control Theory, Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstr. 1, 39106 Magdeburg, DE
X close

Abstract

Scientific software projects evolve rapidly in their initial development phase, yet at the end of a funding period, the completion of a research project, thesis, or publication, further engagement in the project may slow down or cease completely. To retain the invested effort for the sciences, this software needs to be preserved or handed over to a succeeding developer or team, such as the next generation of (PhD) students.

Comparable guides provide top-down recommendations for project leads. This paper intends to be a bottom-up approach for sustainable hand-over processes from a developer’s perspective. An important characteristic in this regard is the project’s size, by which this guideline is structured. Furthermore, checklists are provided, which can serve as a practical guide for implementing the proposed measures.

How to Cite: Fehr, J., Himpe, C., Rave, S. and Saak, J., 2021. Sustainable Research Software Hand-Over. Journal of Open Research Software, 9(1), p.5. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/jors.307
25
Views
20
Downloads
1
Twitter
  Published on 30 Apr 2021
 Accepted on 30 Oct 2020            Submitted on 17 Oct 2019

1 Introduction

Research software, software artifacts as research products, or computer-based experiments are drivers of modern science. Yet, while computerization has massively accelerated science, the intangible and volatile nature of software has also inhibited scientific progress: Once-developed-software is often not usable in subsequent development of algorithms, for example, due to technical incompatibilities, insufficient documentation, or plain unavailability. Even though advances in supplying source codes together with published results are achieved [23], the reusability of such scientific codes remains unsatisfactory [18], and of limited reach when tied to a publication. So, instead of building on top of “shoulders of giants”, the “wheel is reinvented” regularly in many branches of sciences and not least in computational mathematics. A frequently occurring symptom of this deficiency is the inadequate treatment of software developed for, or over the course of a PhD thesis, which may be disregarded either by the original or subsequent developing PhD candidate.

As scientists, scientific organizations, and funding agencies are becoming more aware of these issues, guidelines and best practices for good scientific software conduct are in demand. Examples for such academically driven efforts are the guides published by the alliance of German research associations [19], the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) “guidelines for safeguarding good scientific practice” [7], the DLR (Deutsche Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt) guideline [26], or the software sustainability institute guideline [17]. These guides present top-down approaches aimed at principal investigators, decision-makers and coordinators. Our contribution, on the other hand, intends to be a bottom-up approach presenting requirements and recommendations for academic software developers, such as undergraduate students, PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, or research software engineers. Furthermore, instead of focusing on the development process of scientific software, as in [13, 14, 16, 9] and references therein, we focus on the continuation of a project, when the developer (or a maintainer) leaves, e.g. after completing their PhD project.

We note that industry has already adapted robust collaborative software development practices, see for example [11]. Yet, given that developers of scientific codes may have no formal training in software engineering, and scientific software development processes can differ, in academia only certain ideas can be transferred to support researchers or departments.

While the issues addressed in this work apply to all branches of science, we emphasize that mathematical software projects hold particular responsibilities. An example are the numerical libraries BLAS [22] and LAPACK [1], which constitute the basis for numerical computations in many sciences. Hence, authors of this foundational layer in scientific software stacks need to take into account the continued use and possibly further development outside the field of mathematics. Best practices for mathematical software [25, 6] and numerical software [21, 3] are long known (yet still not established), and properties such as reliability, robustness or transportability [5], the numerical experiment attributes replicability, reproducibility and reusability [9], code as a form of scientific notation [29, 12], as well as basic guidelines for research software [24] have been discussed in the literature, yet, sustainable hand-over strategies for (mathematical) research software projects have not been documented to the best knowledge of the authors.

The core of this work aims at the hand-over of general scientific software projects, illustrated in Figure 1, which is discussed in detail in the following sections. We consider two classes of research software projects: First, small projects, see Section 2.1, which are implemented by a single developer, for example over the course of a PhD program or a funding period; Second, large projects, see Section 2.2, which have multiple developers. Since these two project categories serve different purposes, the proposed requirements and recommendations differ. Minimal requirements, as well as optional recommendations, are given for both project categories. Finally in Section 3, a brief conclusion is given alongside two checklists, which summarizes the proposed measures for a practical hand-over process, followed by a brief comment on minimal documentation of numerical software in the Appendix.

Figure 1 

Project hand-over illustrative summary.

2 Project Hand-Over

In the following, we lay out minimal and optional measures for a sustainable project hand-over distinguished by the size of the project. From our experience, we recommend the distinction of software projects into the two categories “small” and “large”. A more fine grained categorization is surmisable too, see e.g. [15], still, we think that two categories are sufficient in covering the essential aspects of sustainable software hand-over, with the rationale that more straightforward guidelines may have a higher chance of general acceptance compared to more complicated rule sets.

As a general remark: When a project is handed over, a time period from before the previous developer leaves, till after the next developer enters the project is considered the hand-over time, which should be allocated in a manner to suitably prepare the hand-over, and allow for a training phase. To this end, it can be worth the extra cost of having the previous and next developer(s) overlap for some time, depending on the project size and complexity. We also note that if a project is not continued in direct succession, it can be conserved; see for example [27], for information on archiving.

2.1 Small Project

We consider a small project to be code developed and maintained by a single author, which means, for example, a project written from scratch, or a fork of an existing project that throughout the development is not merged back into the parent project. This is often the case for tools developed as part of a publication, thesis or with a tight focus. Such projects have their developer as the sole user, or at least a limited user base.

Following, we will lay out minimal requirements, which ensure the project’s sustainability, as well as optional recommendations that facilitate long-term usability, such as, when a new student takes over, after a previous student finishes their work, or if an abandoned project is revived.

2.1.1 Minimal Requirements

Code availability The most important requirement for continuation or at least conservation is the availability of the project contents — utilized specific hardware components may need to be kept available physically, if no virtualization is possible — including the source code, configuration and data files. Therefore, the project location should be discoverable, i.e.: not solely on the developer’s personal computer hard-drive, but rather in a central repository of the associated institute at a known and accessible storage location.

Code ownership If the code is available, the next important question is: Who owns the code? Potential owners could be the associated institute or university, the superior or supervisor of the developer, or the original developer themselves. Additionally, if there is third-party funding involved, the funding entity may have regulations about the funded project’s ownership. Besides ownership, third-party rights need to be considered, originating from prior developers, third-party projects, or parts thereof included in the project. These ownership question can be resolved by documentation of stakeholders alongside the code and with a license statement, which can be as easy as the project’s developer self-licensing their work or following the respective guidelines applicable to them. For further information on software licensing see [28].

Execution environment Given all legal prerequisites are resolved, a minimal description of the required runtime environment, such as operating system, dependencies, and compiler or interpreter is needed, together with a short description on how to compile, if necessary, and run the project. A tested upon operating system needs to be stated (with compute architecture and endianess if applicable). We also recommend listing all depending software libraries, tools or toolboxes, which are not part of the default installation of the compatible operating systems. Furthermore, all components of the required software stack need to be given with a version number. We caution that even in case of high-level cross-platform runtime environments, certain behavior may depend voluntarily, accidentally, or due to restrictions, on the underlying operating system (for a minimal report, in this case, see the Appendix). In view of increasingly complex scientific computing software stacks (Figure 2), providing a reproducible execution environment (see below) is highly recommended.

Figure 2 

Software stack dependencies: “Tower of Doom”.

Working example An essential requirement for a small project hand-over, is sample code (In [9] such a file is suggested to be named RUNME.), which can run and demonstrate the core feature(s) of the project. Such an example is essential, to test if the code is executable and also serves as a starting point to understand the structure of the code, since the workflow can be traced for a known working example, e.g. by a debugging program. Moreover, the results can be used to verify that future changes do not (unintentionally) affect computational results. To these ends, the execution of such an example code should sufficiently cover the complete functionality of the software project.

Minimal documentation Typically the information of the previous requirements is gathered in a README file (README is a widely used file name for a plain text file, holding a minimal documentation; see: [9]). Further information that should be included in the README is:

  • Is the code functioning, and if, on what hardware (see Appendix)?
  • Is the available project state current (latest use in a thesis or publication)?
  • New algorithms from which publications are implemented by this project?
  • Existing algorithms from which publications are utilized by this project?
  • What publications use this project?
  • What are the known limitations or issues?

Referencing all associated publications helps to put a small research software project in the appropriate scientific context, and has also educational function for the subsequent developer(s).

2.1.2 Optional Recommendation

Public release As the availability of the project is crucial, for the documentation of the scientific findings, the best measure is a public release under an, ideally, open license on a stable service [8]. If legal or other reasons prevent such line of action, the reasons should be stated near the top of the aforementioned README file, so this important information is not lost in transition.

Version control We strongly recommend to use a version control software to track the changes during the development of the project in a repository. Besides documenting the history of a project, modern version control systems allow to tag (mark) states of the repository. This is useful for associating experiments, for example in publications, during the development process. Hence, all experiments can refer to a specific revision of the source code, in order to ensure replicability and reproducibility, in particular for future developers. At the very least a version control repository serves as a (very sophisticated) back up method. An introduction to generic version control workflows can be found in [30].

Basic code cleanup Furthermore, some software development anti-patterns [4] are more common (in our experience) in small projects, and impede project continuation by another than the original developer. First, undocumented constants used in the source code hinder the interpretation in the absence of the original developer. Second, comments containing code, so called dead code, introduce the uncertainty which code has been used for what experiments, and if the commented out code is still needed or not. Third, the use of hard-coded file paths may prevent the project from functioning in a different environment, such as another developer’s computer. All these issues can, if not fixable, be easily resolved by a few additional source code comments.

Reproducible execution environment In addition to the minimally required documentation, we recommend to report if the project was tested in other compute environments than the developer’s. To ensure long term compatibility and conservation, it is relevant if the project can run on a simulated computer, i.e. a virtual machine. This allows conserving an image file, treated as a hard drive by such a virtual machine, containing the complete software stack (including the operating system). Thus, the image file completely defines the software aspect of the compute environment, and the virtual machine software presents an abstraction from the hardware.

As an alternative to a virtual machine image, a step-by-step guide can be included, which explains the preparation, i.e. correct sequence of installation of dependencies, starting from the base installation of a compatible operating system. Such a guide can be easily distributed with the software, whereas, due to their size, virtual machine images often need to be archived separately. Moreover, the guide can serve as a starting point for installing the software in other execution environments.

Integration into larger project A possible path for small projects is the inclusion into existing larger projects, which, for example, provide a collection of topically related functionality, like a community library. Such a large project mitigates some of the aforementioned problems due to development guidelines. To be included into the code base of such a super-project, it is essential for the small project to be modular and compatible with the including project’s principle design, interfaces, style and contribution guidelines, as well as possibly build and test systems. Furthermore, planned or unsuccessful directions of development should be included into the documentation to support the future (third-party) development of the incorporated small project.

Practically, there are three paths to include a smaller project into an overarching project: First, the continuous development, for example, as a feature of the large project. This approach naturally requires adherence to project guidelines and often entails slower progress due to this overhead. Second, after completion, requesting inclusion of the finished “small project”; while quick progress can be made this way during development, integration may be hard due to independent design and build systems. Third, a fork of the super-project with subsequent independent development, and a final merge, which may also require some adaptions, likely allows efficient development without giving up the frame of the super-project.

Alternatively, if direct integration into the large project’s code base is impractical, preserving the small project as a module or callable library, together with integration of a binding interface into the large project, can be an option. To track the large project’s dependence on a specific version of the small project, version control system features such as submodules or subrepositories can be used.

2.2 Large Project

We define a large project as a software package that is developed by multiple authors, possibly located at different institutions. An example setting is a project consortium developing a joint tool driven by their research that also should be made available, e.g. to their peers. While the developing researchers may be a significant subgroup of the software’s users, in this case the community can be far larger and the users might even be unrelated to this community.

In our experience it is advisable that large projects have a hierarchy of contributors, see Figure 3, which follows de-facto standards. Unprivileged users serve as reporters, who file feature requests or bug reports (which can jointly be called issues). Contributors that work on closing bugs or contributing features are called developers. They have limited, or no write access to the main development line of the software. The maintainers have extended permissions on the repository and oversee the progress of the software project. They also merge the contributions of the developers into the main development line. While reporters and developers may change frequently, maintainers ensure consistency of the development, at most superseded by a rights holding entity, depicted in Figure 3 as a roof of the project.

Figure 3 

Project hand-over illustrative summary for a larger project.

In the following sections, we propose hand-over guidelines for large projects, subdivided into bare minimum requirements and optional, but desired, recommendations. While for developers the guidelines for small projects (Section 2.1) apply to their branches (a branch is a copy of the development resources under version control which can evolve in separate, but is still part of the overall source code repository.), the presentation, here, focuses on maintainers.

2.2.1 Minimal Requirements

Software license The chosen project license is important, even crucial for publicly available projects. While for a small project only few entities are eligible to act as the rights holder, for large projects the situation can be, and often is, more complex. This, in turn, leads to additional difficulties that need further attention: Project funding can end after a certain period, and maintainers may change their employers or even fields of interest. Thus, to ensure continued availability of the project, the developers need to come to a formal agreement, i.e. a software license, under which terms the project should be available. For an open-source license hierarchy, see [31].

Code ownership of contributions Compared to small projects, the question of contributed code’s legal ownership is more relevant for large projects. In particular, developers need to consider that a later change of license requires the consent of all copyright holders, which may have long left academia. Therefore, if a license change shall remain feasible, all code contributors could transfer their copyright to a single entity, for example, a society or association as copyright holder. It should also be noted, that there are important differences in copyright laws over the world and obtaining proper legal advice is desirable.

Access to project resources Similarly important as legal rights are the access permissions in the software repository and further project resources, such as servers, websites, domain names or mailing lists. As a minimal requirement, there should always be at least two persons with administrator access to all project resources. In case of a smaller development team with only one active maintainer, it is sufficient if these rights are held by a second person who is associated with the project but is not an active developer (like a research group leader). This measure prevents a project from depending on the health and goodwill of a single individual.

Management of development branches Modern version control systems permit ways to continue developing a version of the software independently from a given state of the main development stream, e.g., for development of new features. These are called branches, and it is good practice to use one branch per user, or issue. Each branch has to be documented with respect to its purpose and status; furthermore, it should be clear which developers are responsible for the branch. If the withdrawal of a developer from the project leads to an unmaintained branch, the branch should either be merged into the main development branch, a new developer for the branch should be found, or in case either is not feasible, a detailed description of the open and completed tasks should be added to the documentation to allow continuation after a stale phase.

Stable main branch To ensure that a leaving maintainer cannot cause an unknown or unusable state of the project, it is essential to make sure that the main branch of the software can be (if applicable compiled and) executed by more than a single person (the main developer) and runs on all targeted platforms at any time during the development process. This also means that the installation is flexible enough to at least specify user-specific paths during the build process.

2.2.2 Optional Recommendation

Division of responsibilities Beyond a certain project extent, distributing the workload among multiple maintainers may become necessary: Scientific software projects often comprise segregated functional compartments, for example: reading, processing, storing, visualizing, or forwarding data. Depending on their complexity, all these steps may branch into a large variety of available methods, and thus be too complex to oversee in detail for a single maintainer. In this case maintainers should be assigned for different parts of the project, and their responsibilities recorded in the code repository, e.g. [10]. Whenever a maintainer leaves, their responsibilities need to be handed-over to another maintainer.

Code maintainability All measures that improve the overall quality of the code and its maintainability are also beneficial in a hand-over process as they facilitate the familiarization of a new developer with the project. More importantly, after the withdrawal of a developer, old code that has been written by this developer will be much easier to understand if standard software development best practices are followed. In particular, we mention usage of continuous integration (CI). In software engineering, continuous integration is the practice of merging all developers’ working copies into the main development line regularly. This is often followed by a test-phase to ensure that none of the recent changes break other functionality (see also [2]). An optional add-on, which is especially relevant for scientific computing software, is the more recent technique of continuous benchmarking that additionally tries to ensure optimal performance of the implementation at all times. Furthermore, if applicable, we recommend the usage of build systems that automatically resolve dependencies, especially to other projects, during the compilation process.

Changelog As soon as a software is developed and used by more than one person, keeping track of important changes in the software compared to earlier versions becomes consequential. While the history of version control systems allows inspecting every change of the software, this information is usually too fine grained for the “big picture”. Therefore, the most relevant changes should be documented in a CHANGELOG file [20] or the release notes. This document not only informs users about new features, the removal of faulty code or changes in the interfaces, but also helps developers of other software projects relying on the function interfaces, to keep track of changes and necessary updates to their own projects. More importantly in the scope of a project hand-over it is helpful for the new maintainer to comprehend changes and note dependencies as well as compatibilities, especially if legacy versions of a project need to be maintained, e.g. due to hardware restrictions, in parallel to the evolution in the main development branch.

Code of conduct A document defining rules for the introduction and retirement of project maintainers as well as handling project administration questions can have an essential role in project hand-over. In particular, when a maintainer no longer actively works on the project but is hesitant to step down, a code of conduct document can prevent an entailing gridlock in the project.

Contribution policy Besides the legal status of contributions discussed above, a contribution policy defines the practical requirements for the contributed code. Typical requirements regard the general workflow of the project. For example, requirements state whether single or multiple pull/merge requests, with what level of documentation and tests, are expected. The code should be mergeable with the main development branch. Also, (passing) tests for all included features can be expected in the project’s favored test suite. The licensing and copyright of the contributed code as well as the form of attribution of the contribution should be clear. Oftentimes also restrictions on the code’s general layout and naming schemes are prescribed, in order to improve readability and thus accessibility of the implemented ideas.

As discussed above, a case of project hand-over is the inclusion of a smaller into larger project. Such a policy can simplify this process, in particular, if these requirements are known during the development of the small project.

3 Sustainable Hand-Over

In this work we presented measures for the sustainable hand-over of research software, by differentiating between small and large software projects and proposing minimal requirements and optional recommendation for both categories. With this, we aim to spark a discussion in the sciences on sustainability of research software development and appreciate feedback. Furthermore, we hope that this document, and especially the checklists in Tables 1 and 2 help software sustainability (maybe even beyond science) or at least serve as a template prototype.

Table 1

Checklist for sustainable research software hand-over of small projects.


SMALL SOFTWARE PROJECT HAND-OVER

Minimal Requirements

Code availability Where are source code, data and configuration files?

Code ownership Who owns the software and who holds rights?

Execution environment What hardware and software stack is required?

Working example How are the features of the code producing what results?

Minimal documentation What does a new developer need to know at the least?

Optional Recommendations

Public release Is a public open-source release possible?

Version control Are revisions of the software automatically tracked? Where?

Basic code cleanup Are constants, dead code and hard paths removed?

Reproducible execution environment Is a (virtual) machine back up available?

Integration into larger project Is inclusion into a larger project possible or planned?

Table 2

Checklist for sustainable research software hand-over of large projects.


LARGE SOFTWARE PROJECT HAND-OVER

Minimal Requirements

Software license Has a suitable (and compatible) software license been chosen?

Code ownership of contributions Who owns which parts of the code?

Access to project resources Are full permissions to all project resources granted to at least two persons?

Management of development branches Are there unmaintained development branches?

Stable main branch How is stability of the main branch ensured?

Optional Recommendations

Division of responsibilities Do all parts of the project have a responsible maintainer?

Code maintainability Is continuous integration/testing/benchmarking utilized?

Changelog Are the core changes of the releases tracked in a changelog or release notes?

Code of conduct What are the central points of the code of conduct and why?

Contribution policy How are contribution policies communicated?

Alternative strategies to academic development, which can also ensure sustainable development, such as commercialization, were not discussed, as the requirements for small and large projects alike, first and foremost involve legal issues. Nonetheless, also in case of academic research software hand-overs, it is always advisable to consult the involved entity’s legal department(s), due to the complex situation with copyright, licensing and ownership.

Appendix

Due to the background of the authors, we give some specific documentation hints for numerical software; this automatically includes code written in the languages MATLAB/Octave, Python (NumPy/SciPy), R, and Julia, as well as most research software depending on numerical computations. The bare minimum information on the computation environment for these non-compiled numerical software is given by:

  • Runtime interpreter name and version.
  • Operating system name, version and architecture/word-width.
  • Processor name and exact identifier.
  • Required amount of random access memory.
  • BLAS library implementation name and version.
  • LAPACK library implementation name and version.

Obviously, in other sciences additional minimal information may be necessary. For example in lab-sciences hardware and protocols for access to lab equipment providing the processed data would be essential information.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank ARNIM KARGL for his help in preparing the hand-over illustrations.

Funding information

Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy EXC2075 — 390740016, SimTech Stuttgart, Stuttgart Center for Simulation Science.

Supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, in the joint project: “MathEnergy — Mathematical Key Technologies for Evolving Energy Grids”, sub-project: Model Order Reduction (Grant number: 0324019B).

Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy EXC 2044–390685587, Mathematics Münster: Dynamics–Geometry–Structure.

Supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under contract 05M18PMA.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Anderson E, Bai Z, Bischof C, Demmel J, Dongarra J, Du Croz J, Greenbaum A, Hammarling S, McKenney A, Sorensen D. LAPACK Users’ Guide. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, third (ed); 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719604 

  2. Beck K. Test Driven Development: By Example. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Professional; 2003. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/579193. 

  3. Boisvert RF, (ed). Quality of Numerical Software. Boston, MA: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer; 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-5041-2940-4 

  4. Brown WJ, Malveau RC, McCormick HW, Mowbray TJ. AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. Wiley, 1998. URL: http://antipatterns.com. 

  5. Cody WJ. Basic concepts for computational software. In Messina PC, Murli A (eds.), Problems and Methodologies in Mathematical Software Production, volume 142 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–23. Berlin: Springer; 1982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-11603-6_1 

  6. Crowder H, Dembo RS, Mulvey JM. On reporting computational experiments with mathematical software. ACM Trans. Math. Software, 1979; 5(2): 193–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/355826.355833 

  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Guidelines for safeguarding good scientific practice; 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923601 

  8. Di Cosmo R, Zacchiroli S. Software heritage: Why and how to preserve software source code. In iPRES 2017: 14th International Conference on Digital Preservation, 2017. URL: https://ipres2017.jp/wp-content/uploads/19Roberto-Di-Cosmo.pdf. 

  9. Fehr J, Heiland J, Himpe C, Saak J. Best practices for replicability, reproducibility and reusability of computer-based experiments exemplified by model reduction software. AIMS Mathematics, 2016; 1(3): 261–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3934/Math.2016.3.261 

  10. Github Inc. About code owners, 2020. URL: https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/about-code-owners. 

  11. Henderson F. Software engineering at Google. Technical report, Google, 2017. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01715.pdf. 

  12. Hinsen K. The roles of code in computational science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 2017; 19(1): 78–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2017.18 

  13. Hong NC. Minimal information for reusable scientific software. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE2.1), 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1112528 

  14. Hong NC. Why do we need to compare research software, and how should we do it? In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE4.1), volume 1686 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2016. URL: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1686/WSSSPE4_paper_29.pdf. 

  15. INRIA Evaluation Committee. Criteria for software self-assessment. https://www.inria.fr/sites/default/files/2019-10/Criteria_software_self_assessment.pdf. 

  16. Irving D. A minimum standard for publishing computational results in the weather and climate sciences. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 2015; 97: 1149–1158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00010.1 

  17. Jackson M. Software deposit guidance (version 1.0). Technical report, Software sustainability Institute, 2018. see also https://softwaresaved.github.io/software-deposit-guidance/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1327310 

  18. Johanson A, Hasselbring W. Software engineering for computational science: Past, present, future. Computing in Science & Engineering, 2018; 20(2): 90–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2018.021651343 

  19. Katerbow M, Feulner G. Handreichung zum Umgang mit Forschungssoftware, 2018. Herausgegeben von der Arbeitsgruppe Forschungssoftware im Rahmen der Schwerpunktinitiative Digitale Information der Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen. Unter Mitarbeit von Bornschein M, Brembs B, Erben-Russ M, Förstner K, Franke M, Fritzsch B, Fuhrmann J, Goedicke M, Janosch S, Konrad U, Zielke D. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1172970 

  20. Olivier Lacan. Keep a Changelog. URL: https://keepachangelog.com. 

  21. Laub AJ. Numerical linear algebra aspects of control design computations. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 1985; 30(2): 97–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1985.1103900 

  22. Lawson C, Hanson R, Kincaid D, Krogh F. Basic linear algebra subprograms for FORTRAN usage. ACM Trans. Math. Software, 1979; 5: 303–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/355841.355847 

  23. Nature Publishing Group. Code check. Nature, 2018; 555: 142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02741-4 

  24. Queiroz F, Silva R, Miller J, Brockhauser S, Fangohr H. Good usability practices in scientific software development. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE5.1), 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5331814.v3 

  25. Rice J. (ed). Mathematical Software. ACM Monograph Series. Academic Press, 1971. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-11363-3 

  26. Schlauch T, Meinel M, Haupt C. DLR software engineering guidelines, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1344612 

  27. Software Heritage. How to use software heritage for archiving and referencing your source code: guidelines and walkthrough, 2019. URL: https://annex.softwareheritage.org/public/guidelines/archive-research-software.pdf. 

  28. Stodden V. Enabling reproducible research: Open licensing for scientific innovation. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, pages 1–55, 2009. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1362040. 

  29. Timlin D, David O, Green TR, Fleisher DH, Kim S-H, Ahuja LR. Proposed standards for peer-reviewed publication of computer code. Agronomy Journal, 2016; 108(5): 1782–1786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0481 

  30. Westby EJH. Git for Teams. O’Reilly Media, 2015. URL: http://gitforteams.com. 

  31. Wheeler DA. The free-libre/open source software (floss) license slide, 2007. URL: https://dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.pdf. 

comments powered by Disqus