ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Ten simple rules for scientific code review.
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 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 quick tips to SNIFF out sustainable and secure scientific software.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Ten simple rules for building a collaborative coding culture.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Ten principles for reliable, efficient, and adaptable coding in psychology and cognitive neuroscience.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Ten simple rules to complete successfully a computational MSc thesis project.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Reviewability and supportability: New complementary principles to empower research software practices.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
As large, high-dimensional data have become more common, software development is playing an increasingly important role in research across many different fields. This creates a need to adopt software engineering practices in research settings. Code review is the engineering practice of giving and receiving detailed feedback on a computer program. Consistent and continuous examination of the evolution of computer programs by others has been shown to be beneficial, especially when reviewers are familiar with the technical aspects of the software and also when they possess relevant domain expertise. The rules described in the present article provide information about the why, when, and how of code review. They provide the motivation for continual code reviews as a natural part of a rigorous research program. They provide practical guidelines for conducting review of code both in person, as a "lab meeting for code," as well as asynchronously, using industry-standard online tools. A set of guidelines is provided for the nitty-gritty details of code review, as well as for the etiquette of such a review. Both the technical and the social aspects of code review are covered to provide the reader with a comprehensive approach that facilitates an effective, enjoyable, and educational approach to code review.
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.