Skip to content

Moving manifesto from index to a separate file #4

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2018
Merged

Moving manifesto from index to a separate file #4

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
27 changes: 27 additions & 0 deletions manifesto.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
# Code is Science Manifesto

Through working with scientific code, we agree that scientific code needs to be treated as a genuine research output.

## Preamble
Code is science. Historically, science has been reviewed by its peers to validate it before being published. In modern times, computer code forms part of scientific analysis, but it is rarely shared and reviewed.

This manifesto is for anyone who deals with code in a scientific setting, including publishers, researchers, engineers, and administrators.

## Manifesto Principles

### Open over closed
Ideally scientific code should be released by the time of publication, under an open source licence, such that anyone may download, re-use and expand upon it.
### Code for the future
Follow [good practices](https://software.ac.uk/resources/guides/software-development-general-best-practice) from the start of the project; don’t build up technical debts that are hard to fix later. This generally means testing, writing documentation, instructions on how to run and maintain your code, and following modern development practices.
### Incorrect code results in incorrect science
Code should be peer reviewed. Ensure that at least one reviewer understands code well enough to evaluate it critically, as well as domain experts who can comment on the specific scientific area.
### Availability over perfection
You don’t have to be a computer scientist to write code, and your code doesn’t have to be perfect. There is always room to improve your skills — some intensive training courses such as [Software Carpentry](https://software-carpentry.org/) only take a day or two.
Be nice and provide constructive criticism, when reviewing recognise that people make mistakes in good faith.
### Code deserves credit
Software should be cited and acknowledged as scientific output. This means you should cite your sources as well as ask to be cited yourself.

## Background
- [Agile Manifesto](http://agilemanifesto.org/)
- [Data Ops Manifesto](http://dataopsmanifesto.org/)
- [Software Sustainability Institute Collaboration Workshop 2018](https://www.software.ac.uk/cw18/)