ReviewScientific reports2022
Documenting research software in engineering science.
Review in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten common misconceptions about Galaxy (and why they are wrong!).PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Pyomo: Accidentally outrunning the bear.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Documenting research in simulation science to enhance understanding for reusability.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Documenting research software in engineering science.Scientific reports · 2022Review
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
The reuse of research software needs good documentation, however, the documentation in particular is often criticized. Especially in non-IT specific disciplines, the lack of documentation is attributed to the lack of training, the lack of time or missing rewards. This article addresses the hypothesis that scientists do document but do not know exactly what they need to document, why, and for whom. In order to evaluate the actual documentation practice of research software, we examined existing recommendations, and we evaluated their implementation in everyday practice using a concrete example from the engineering sciences and compared the findings with best practice examples. To get a broad overview of what documentation of research software entailed, we defined categories and used them to conduct the research. Our results show that the big picture of what documentation of research software means is missing. Recommendations do not consider the important role of researchers, who write research software, whose documentation takes mainly place in their research articles. Moreover, we show that research software always has a history that influences the documentation.
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.