Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38722873›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

FAIR-USE4OS: Guidelines for creating impactful open-source software.

Raphael Sonabend, Hugo Gruson, Leo Wolansky, Agnes Kiragga, Daniel S Katz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Raphael SonabendOSPO Now, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9225-4654
Hugo GrusonWashington DC, United States of America.
Leo WolanskyScale AI, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Agnes KiraggaOSPO Now, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel S KatzUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5934-7525

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper extends the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guidelines to provide criteria for assessing if software conforms to best practices in open source. By adding "USE" (User-Centered, Sustainable, Equitable), software development can adhere to open source best practice by incorporating user-input early on, ensuring front-end designs are accessible to all possible stakeholders, and planning long-term sustainability alongside software design. The FAIR-USE4OS guidelines will allow funders and researchers to more effectively evaluate and plan open-source software projects. There is good evidence of funders increasingly mandating that all funded research software is open source; however, even under the FAIR guidelines, this could simply mean software released on public repositories with a Zenodo DOI. By creating FAIR-USE software, best practice can be demonstrated from the very beginning of the design process and the software has the greatest chance of success by being impactful.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicSoftwareComputational BiologyHumansSoftware Design

Identifiers

PMID38722873
PMCPMC11081270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.