Sustained software development, not number of citations or journal choice, is indicative of accurate bioinformatic software | Genome Biology | Full Texthttps://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-022-02625-x
Our findings indicate that accurate bioinformatic software is primarily the product of long-term commitments to software development.
A big conclusion (and certainly one that makes sense to me). I need to really dive deep into the methods here to make sure I actually understand what they're claiming.
If this is true for the rest of research software this has implications for the sustainability of software. If the important tools are those that have been incrementally developed and improved over time, how do we actually find that?
Related By Tags
- 🔗 Managing Research Software Projects
- 🔗 Internet Archive Scholar
- 🔗 Call for reviews | Construction Kit: a review journal for research tools and data services in the humanities
- 🔗 GitHub - jdallen83/sm_content_clustering: A Python module for clustering creators of social media content into networks
- 🔗 “Just a few files”: technical labor, academe, and care – andromeda yelton
- 🔗 Journal of Open Source Software: ConTEXT Explorer: a web-based text analysis tool for exploring and visualizing concepts across time
- 🔗 Software for reproducible science: let’s not have a misunderstanding -- Gaël Varoquaux: computer / data / health science
- 🔗 (A few) Ops Lessons We All Learn The Hard Way
- 🔗 Wesley Aptekar-Cassels | Things I Believe About Software Engineering
- 🔗 Engineering | BestPracticer