ArticleScientific reports2021
The SoftWipe tool and benchmark for assessing coding standards adherence of scientific software.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- grenedalf: population genetic statistics for the next generation of pool sequencing.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- CMAPLE: Efficient Phylogenetic Inference in the Pandemic Era.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- DecentTree: scalable Neighbour-Joining for the genomic era.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Lagrange-NG: The next generation of Lagrange.Systematic biology · 2023Article
- Asteroid: a new algorithm to infer species trees from gene trees under high proportions of missing data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Phylourny: efficiently calculating elimination tournament win probabilities via phylogenetic methods.Statistics and computing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific software from all areas of scientific research is pivotal to obtaining novel insights. Yet the coding standards adherence of scientific software is rarely assessed, even though it might lead to incorrect scientific results in the worst case. Therefore, we have developed an open source tool and benchmark called SoftWipe, that provides a relative software coding standards adherence ranking of 48 computational tools from diverse research areas. SoftWipe can be used in the review process of software papers and to inform the scientific software selection process.
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.