ArticlePLoS computational biology2020
Ten simple rules for writing a paper about scientific software.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating LC-HRMS metabolomics data processing software using FAIR principles for research software.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2023Pooled it
- Ten simple rules for an effective mentor-mentee writing partnership.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Guidance for sharing computational models of neural stimulation: from project planning to publication.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Review
- A how-to guide for code sharing in biology.PLoS biology · 2024Review
- Ten simple rules to make computable knowledge shareable and reusable.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- MEPFeatX-automated feature extraction of motor-evoked potentials in transcranial magnetic stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Papers describing software are an important part of computational fields of scientific research. These "software papers" are unique in a number of ways, and they require special consideration to improve their impact on the scientific community and their efficacy at conveying important information. Here, we discuss 10 specific rules for writing software papers, covering some of the different scenarios and publication types that might be encountered, and important questions from which all computational researchers would benefit by asking along the way.
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.