Software developer guidelines have been around for a while now. Many groups and communities have created custom guidelines and teaching has increased throughout all disciplines, with dedicated projects leading the mission to encourage uptake. Nevertheless, adoption is slow.
In most cases, research projects produce prototypes or demonstrators. In the quest to create and innovate new tools and solutions, software quality is often overlooked. This causes a cemetery of research software produced through grants that never reached a state of technological stability and quality that enables reuse and reproducibility.
At the same time, awareness of existing best practices and quality criteria is rising throughout the community, with limited uptake for many practices. This discrepancy is being felt by the panellists in various positions.
The aim of the panel if to identify reasons for this and sketch possible scenarios to change this status quo. It is becoming more and more clear that only by recognising and crediting software as a dedicated research product as well as defining and enforcing requirements any change is possible. These aspects need to be implemented from the individual level up to enforcement by policy makers and funders.
The panel consists of
- Anna Krystalli, University of Sheffield
- Lucy Whalley, Imperial College London
- Tobias Schlauch, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
- Radovan Bast, University of Tromsø
- Stephan Druskat, German Aerospace Center (DLR) (Scribe)
- Carsten Thiel, CESSDA ERIC (Chair)
Example questions
- There is is no lack of best practice guides – but we seem to struggle implementing them. Why?
- Is it due to personal interest or competence?
- Is it more systemic and we miss support & incentives?
- Are there differences in adoption between disciplines?
- What effects do team culture and organisational structure have on day-to-day work?
- How are other best practices enforced, e.g. in experimental disciplines, natural sciences or medicine?
