Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39916985›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Strategic priorities and challenges in research software funding: Results from an international survey.

Eric A Jensen, Daniel S Katz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 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

2 authors.

Eric A JensenNational Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8332-4507
Daniel S KatzNational Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Research software is increasingly recognized as critical infrastructure in contemporary science. It spans a broad spectrum, including source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables, all created for or during research. While research funders have developed programs, initiatives, and policies to bolster research software's role, there has been no empirical study of how these funders prioritize support for research software. Understanding their priorities is essential to clarify where current support is concentrated and to identify strategic gaps. Methods: We conducted an online mixed methods survey of international research funders (n=36) to explore their priorities in supporting research software. The survey gathered data on the specific outcomes funders emphasize in their programs and initiatives for research software. Results: The survey revealed that funders place strong emphasis on developing skills, promoting software sustainability, embedding open science practices, building community and collaboration, advancing research software funding mechanisms, increasing software visibility and use, fostering innovation, and ensuring security. Conclusions: The findings highlight opportunities to enhance research software's role through increased funder attention on professional recognition for software contributions and the non-technical, social aspects of research software sustainability. Addressing these areas could lead to more effective support and development of research software, ultimately benefitting the entire research ecosystem.

Indexed as

InternationalityResearchSoftwareHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesFAIRopen scienceresearch fundingresearch policyResearch softwarescience systems

Identifiers

PMID39916985
PMCPMC11799755

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.