Addressing Research Software Sustainability via Institutes

Katz, Daniel S.; Carver, Jeffrey C.; Hong, Neil Chue; Gesing, Sandra; Hettrick, Simon; Honeyman, Tom; Ram, Karthik; Weber, Nicholas

doi:10.1109/bokss52540.2021.00013

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research group leader reported about lack of institutional supporting infrastructure for research groups that develop their own software. According to Katz et al [3], universities, funding agencies and other kinds of organizations that belong to the scientific ecosystem should be prepared and invest resources in addressing software research, open science policies, practices, training and scientific infrastructures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding Practices and Challenges of Developing Sustainable Research Software: A Pilot Interview

Feitosa,

von Flach,

Costa

2023

Anais Do III Workshop De Práticas De Ciência Aberta Para Engenharia De Software (OpenScienSE 2023)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research software is the software developed in universities and research laboratories as part of or to support their research. Research software sustainability, that is, the software's ability to last and continue to be supported over time, fosters long-term reproducibility. In this context, it is essential to understand and describe the current practice in universities and research laboratories concerning the development of sustainable research software. However, such information is seldom available, even for research projects funded by national agencies. In this paper, we present the results of a pilot interview study conducted with a research group in Applied Physics, whose members historically developed most of the supporting research software. We interviewed the leading investigator to collect information about his knowledge of open science, research software, and software engineering practices, the challenges and supporting factors to develop software, and possible efforts to make it sustainable. The pilot study allowed us to refine the study design to support a more comprehensive study with other groups at the same University.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Universities and other kinds of organizations that belong to the scientific ecosystem are should be prepared and invest resources in addressing software research, open science policies, practices, training and scientific infrastructures [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Practices and Challenges of Developing Sustainable Research Software: A Pilot Interview

Feitosa,

von Flach,

Costa

2023

Anais Do III Workshop De Práticas De Ciência Aberta Para Engenharia De Software (OpenScienSE 2023)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further up the chain, we find even more elaborate institutional structures, such as software sustainability institutes 11 , which ‘develop, maintain, and disseminate best practices for research software sustainability, and build community around them’ (Katz et al, 2021). Foundations and companies are other institutional forms seeking to tackle the considerable problems we find in short term project-funded software development.…”

Section: Authorship In Tool-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5As a reaction, there have been attempts to make tools more easily citable through DOIs and some projects even include ‘citation licenses’ that obligate users to reference them correctly. For a discussion in the hard sciences see Katz and Stall (2021). Additionally, making software FAIR may help here (Lamprecht et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From tool to tool-making: Reflections on authorship in social media research software

Rieder

Peeters

Borra

2022

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media research software has come to play increasingly important roles in processes of knowledge production. While epistemological, logistical, legal, and ethical concerns put the spotlight on the software tools researchers are relying on, little attention is paid to the role of the ‘toolmaker’ beyond a vague idea of the ‘power’ wielded by those who design, develop, and maintain these technical artifacts. This paper seeks to address this role, both conceptually and with attention to practical concerns, as a form of hybrid and relational authorship. We thereby shift the focus from tool to tool-making, from artifact to practice, in an attempt to produce a different kind of ‘unblackboxing’ of tools than the somewhat overused tropes of open source code or open data. Our contribution proceeds in three steps. We first address tools and tool-making from a theoretical perspective, suggesting that their epistemological orientation reaches more deeply into the networks of research practice than words like ‘bias’ admit and proposing to consider the specific kind of hybrid authorship that emerges in this context. Calling on our own experiences as toolmakers, we then reflect on a cluster of issues where this authorial function becomes particularly visible. Here, we examine how motivations and commitments orient what a piece of software does and how it does it and discuss tool-making from the perspectives of co-development, maintenance and care, and ethics by design. We conclude by arguing that the most pressing concerns for tool-making lie in institutional arrangements that are crucial for the life of research software.

show abstract

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

Jensen,

Katz

2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Addressing Research Software Sustainability via Institutes

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Understanding Practices and Challenges of Developing Sustainable Research Software: A Pilot Interview

Understanding Practices and Challenges of Developing Sustainable Research Software: A Pilot Interview

From tool to tool-making: Reflections on authorship in social media research software

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About