Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
149 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Vision on Open Science for the Evolution of Software Engineering Research and Practice (2405.12132v1)

Published 20 May 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: Open Science aims to foster openness and collaboration in research, leading to more significant scientific and social impact. However, practicing Open Science comes with several challenges and is currently not properly rewarded. In this paper, we share our vision for addressing those challenges through a conceptual framework that connects essential building blocks for a change in the Software Engineering community, both culturally and technically. The idea behind this framework is that Open Science is treated as a first-class requirement for better Software Engineering research, practice, recognition, and relevant social impact. There is a long road for us, as a community, to truly embrace and gain from the benefits of Open Science. Nevertheless, we shed light on the directions for promoting the necessary culture shift and empowering the Software Engineering community.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. ACM. 2020. Artifact Review and Badging. https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-badging. [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  2. SE 2014: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering. Computer 48, 11 (2015), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.345
  3. Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike. 2014. Towards Another Scientific Revolution. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1
  4. The Carpentries. 2023. The Carpentries. https://carpentries.org/. [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  5. Dalmeet Singh Chawla. 2021. Nature Index: “Scientists at odds on Utrecht University reforms to hiring and promotion criteria”. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/scientists-argue-over-use-of-impact-factors-for-evaluating-research. [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  6. ReproZip: Computational Reproducibility With Ease. In Proc. the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD ’16) (San Francisco, USA). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2085–2088. https://doi.org/10.1145/2882903.2899401
  7. FAIR Principles for Research Software (FAIR4RS Principles). https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00068
  8. The Four Pillars of Research Software Engineering. IEEE Software 38, 1 (2021), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2020.2973362
  9. Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging Open Science practices: Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Publications Office, Europe. https://doi.org/10.2777/75255
  10. RCP Consortium. 2024. Princeton Research Computing – Research Software Engineering. https://researchcomputing.princeton.edu/services/research-software-engineering [Online; accessed 2024-01-27].
  11. André Cordeiro and Edson OliveiraJr. 2021. Open Science Practices for Software Engineering Controlled Experiments and Quasi-Experiments. In Proc. of the 1st Workshop on Open Science Practices for Software Engineering (OpenScienSE ’21). SBC, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 19–21. https://doi.org/10.5753/opensciense.2021.17140
  12. André Felipe R. Cordeiro. 2022. An Open Science-Based Framework for Managing Experimental Data in Software Engineering. In Proc. of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE ’22) (Gothenburg, Sweden). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530019.3535348
  13. Thomas Durieux. 2023. Anonymous GitHub. https://anonymous.4open.science/. [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  14. Neil A. Ernst and Maria Teresa Baldassarre. 2023. Registered reports in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 28, 2 (mar 2023), 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10277-5
  15. FOSTER. 2023. The FOSTER Portal: Open Science Training Courses. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/toolkit. [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  16. Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona and Gregorio Robles. 2023. Revisiting the reproducibility of empirical software engineering studies based on data retrieved from development repositories. Information and Software Technology 164 (2023), 107318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107318
  17. Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 15, 4 (2022), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.61
  18. UK Research Software Survey 2014. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14809
  19. James Howison and James D. Herbsleb. 2011. Scientific software production: incentives and collaboration. In Proc. of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’11) (Hangzhou, China). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958904
  20. James Howison and James D. Herbsleb. 2013. Incentives and integration in scientific software production. In Proc. of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’13) (San Antonio, Texas, USA). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441828
  21. D. S. Katz and S. Hettrick. 2023. Research Software Engineering in 2030. In 2023 IEEE Conference on eScience. IEEE, New York, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1109/e-Science58273.2023.10254813
  22. Recognizing the value of software: a software citation guide [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 9, 1257 (2021), 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26932.2
  23. How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, 2 (2016), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616668760
  24. Open Science in Software Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_17
  25. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 1 (2017), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
  26. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. The National Academies Press, Washington, USA. https://doi.org/10.17226/25116
  27. Towards Improving Experimentation in Software Engineering. In Proc. of the XXXV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES ’21) (Joinville, Brazil). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474624.3477073
  28. OpenAire. 2024. OpenAire - Open Science in Europe. https://www.openaire.eu/projects [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  29. OpenSciency Contributors. 2023. Opensciency - A core open science curriculum by and for the research community. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7662732
  30. A Comprehensive Review of Green Computing: Past, Present, and Future Research. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 87445–87494. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3304332
  31. noWorkflow: a tool for collecting, analyzing, and managing provenance from python scripts. Proc. of the VLDB Endowment 10, 12 (aug 2017), 1841–1844. https://doi.org/10.14778/3137765.3137789
  32. ReproServer: Making Reproducibility Easier and Less Intensive. arXiv:1808.01406 [cs.SE]
  33. RSE.org. 2024. Society of Research Software Engineering. https://society-rse.org [Online; accessed 2024-01-27].
  34. RSE.Shef. 2024. Research Software Engineering Sheffield. https://rse.shef.ac.uk [Online; accessed 2024-01-27].
  35. Use of the Dublin Core Standard to Express Open Metadata Related to Software Engineering Experiments. In Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Open Science Practices for Software Engineering (OpenScienSE ’23). SBC, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5753/opensciense.2023.235672
  36. Alcemir Santos. 2021. Open scientist in the wonderland: advocating for blockchain-based decentralized applications for science. In Proc. of the 1st Workshop on Open Science Practices for Software Engineering (OpenScienSE ’21). SBC, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 34–36. https://doi.org/10.5753/opensciense.2021.17143
  37. Heidi Seibold. 2024. Avoiding fraud and improving rigor through Open Science. https://doi.org/10.34734/FZJ-2024-00813 Blog post.
  38. Scientific United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2021. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5834767
  39. US-RSE.org. 2022. Education and Training for Research Software Engineers. https://us-rse.org/2022-08-01-education-training/ [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].
  40. Naming the Pain in Developing Scientific Software. IEEE Software 37, 4 (2020), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2019.2899838
  41. The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship. Scientific Data 3 (2016), 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
  42. WOSSS. 2024. Workshop on Sustainable Software Sustainability (WoSSS). https://wosss.org [Online; accessed 2024-01-25].

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

YouTube