ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024
Reviewability and supportability: New complementary principles to empower research software practices.
Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference.Biology · 2026Review
- Leveraging network motifs to improve artificial neural networks.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In today's scientific landscape, research software has evolved from being a supportive tool to becoming a fundamental driver of discovery, particularly in life sciences. Beyond its roots in software engineering, research software now plays a crucial role in facilitating efficient data analysis and enabling the exploration of complex natural phenomena. The advancements in simulations and modeling through research software have significantly accelerated the pace of scientific research while reducing associated costs. This growing reliance underscores the importance of software in ensuring reproducibility - a cornerstone of scientific rigor and trustworthiness. Although verifying reproducibility presents challenges, well-developed and openly accessible research software enhances transparency and aids in the early detection of errors. Although verifying reproducibility can be challenging, well-developed and accessible research software improves transparency and facilitates error detection. This mini-review examines the characteristics of research software and summarizes the key events that have shaped its development, alongside changes in requirements and guidelines. Moreover, we propose two additional principles -
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.