ArticlePloS one2025
Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding and advancing research software grant funding models.Open research Europe · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary research heavily depends on software. Research software, comprising source code, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables produced during or specifically for research, is crucial in advancing scholarly knowledge. However, this aspect of contemporary research can only thrive if research funders effectively support it. This survey study of international research funders addresses the research questions: 1) How do international funders currently support research software? 2) What challenges are funders aiming to tackle with their research software programs? 3) How successful do funders think their programs are? Survey results reveal a variegated funding landscape for research software, encompassing open-source projects, open-science tools, discipline-specific add-ons, infrastructure software, data science and AI tools, and general technology projects that include research software. Funders reported working to integrate research software into their formal definitions of research, codified in funding models and policies. Funders have been working to revise policies and adopt international frameworks such as ADORE.software to acknowledge research software's role better. Respondents described innovative funding models designed to support research software more effectively than traditional research funding mechanisms. Supporting Research Software Engineers (RSEs) was another priority. Funding programs aimed to provide financial support, career development, and recognition for RSEs. Fostering collaboration between RSEs and other researchers was a less prevalent but noteworthy target for research funders. Promoting open-science principles and open source software development and maintenance was prioritized by research funders with targeted policies and programs. Overall, the reported initiatives aimed to ensure long-term research software accessibility, sustainability, and impact, with robust community engagement helping to contribute to a more effective research ecosystem. Finally, where funding programs for research software have been running for long enough to make an assessment, these efforts were overwhelmingly viewed as successful by the research funder representatives in our study.
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.