ArticlePLoS computational biology2017
Ten simple rules for making research software more robust.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
54 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten quick tips to SNIFF out sustainable and secure scientific software.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Democratizing Artificial Intelligence in Toxicology: Real-World Applications and Automated Computational Workflows.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Review
- The statistical software revolution in pharmaceutical development: challenges and opportunities in open source.Drug discovery today · 2026Review
- SylvCiT - An AI-based support to urban forest resilience.PloS one · 2026Article
- The human vagal complex: from gross anatomy to single neurons, from brainstem to abdomen.Research square · 2025Article
- Guidance for sharing computational models of neural stimulation: from project planning to publication.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Review
- Reviewability and supportability: New complementary principles to empower research software practices.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Improving bioinformatics software quality through teamwork.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The goldmine of GWAS summary statistics: a systematic review of methods and tools.BioData mining · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for scientific code review.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for training scientists to make better software.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Democratizing cheminformatics: interpretable chemical grouping using an automated KNIME workflow.Journal of cheminformatics · 2024Article
- Systematic evaluation with practical guidelines for single-cell and spatially resolved transcriptomics data simulation under multiple scenarios.Genome biology · 2024Article
- For long-term sustainable software in bioinformatics.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Determining a risk-proportionate approach to the validation of statistical programming for clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Review
- Ten simple rules for managing laboratory information.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for providing bioinformatics support within a hospital.BioData mining · 2023Article
- The Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository: An On-Premise Approach for FAIR-Compliant Data Acquisition.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Eleven quick tips for data cleaning and feature engineering.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Software produced for research, published and otherwise, suffers from a number of common problems that make it difficult or impossible to run outside the original institution or even off the primary developer's computer. We present ten simple rules to make such software robust enough to be run by anyone, anywhere, and thereby delight your users and collaborators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.