ReviewMolecular biology and evolution2018
The State of Software for Evolutionary Biology.
Review in Molecular biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing reproducible large-language-model-assisted scientific analyses.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Testing the validity and adequacy of linguistic phylogenetic analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Bit-reproducible parallel phylogenetic tree inference.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- How to Validate a Bayesian Evolutionary Model.Systematic biology · 2025Article
- Incongruence in the phylogenomics era.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
- BioKIT: a versatile toolkit for processing and analyzing diverse types of sequence data.Genetics · 2022Article
- Characterization and Comparative Analysis of MicroRNAs in 3 Representative Red Algae.Iranian journal of biotechnology · 2021Article
- Rooting the Animal Tree of Life.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- orthofisher: a broadly applicable tool for automated gene identification and retrieval.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- The SoftWipe tool and benchmark for assessing coding standards adherence of scientific software.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- PACVr: plastome assembly coverage visualization in R.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Molecular Biology and Evolution of Cancer: From Discovery to Action.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- HyPhy 2.5-A Customizable Platform for Evolutionary Hypothesis Testing Using Phylogenies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Article
- Consensus assessment of the contamination level of publicly available cyanobacterial genomes.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With Next Generation Sequencing data being routinely used, evolutionary biology is transforming into a computational science. Thus, researchers have to rely on a growing number of increasingly complex software. All widely used core tools in the field have grown considerably, in terms of the number of features as well as lines of code and consequently, also with respect to software complexity. A topic that has received little attention is the software engineering quality of widely used core analysis tools. Software developers appear to rarely assess the quality of their code, and this can have potential negative consequences for end-users. To this end, we assessed the code quality of 16 highly cited and compute-intensive tools mainly written in C/C++ (e.g., MrBayes, MAFFT, SweepFinder, etc.) and JAVA (BEAST) from the broader area of evolutionary biology that are being routinely used in current data analysis pipelines. Because, the software engineering quality of the tools we analyzed is rather unsatisfying, we provide a list of best practices for improving the quality of existing tools and list techniques that can be deployed for developing reliable, high quality scientific software from scratch. Finally, we also discuss journal as well as science policy and, more importantly, funding issues that need to be addressed for improving software engineering quality as well as ensuring support for developing new and maintaining existing software. Our intention is to raise the awareness of the community regarding software engineering quality issues and to emphasize the substantial lack of funding for scientific software development.
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.