ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Cycling on the Freeway: The perilous state of open-source neuroscience software.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing mobile brain and body imaging: Open-source solutions for real-world research applications.iScience · 2026Article
- Article
- Open-source platforms to investigate analytical flexibility in neuroimaging.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most scientists need software to perform their research (Barker et al., 2020;Carver et al., 2022;Hettrick, 2014;Hettrick et al., 2014;Switters & Osimo, 2019), and neuroscientists are no exception. Whether we work with reaction times, electrophysiological signals, or magnetic resonance imaging data, we rely on software to acquire, analyze, and statistically evaluate the raw data we obtain-or to generate such data if we work with simulations. In recent years, there has been a shift toward relying on free, open-source scientific software (FOSSS) for neuroscience data analysis (Poldrack et al., 2019), in line with the broader open science movement in academia (McKiernan et al., 2016) and wider industry trends (Eghbal, 2016). Importantly, FOSSS is typically developed by working scientists (not professional software developers), which sets up a precarious situation given the nature of the typical academic workplace wherein academics, especially in their early careers, are on short- and fixed-term contracts. In this paper, we argue that the existing ecosystem of neuroscientific open-source software is brittle, and discuss why and how the neuroscience community needs to come together to ensure a healthy software ecosystem to the benefit of all.
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.