Review literature on "best practice" and add to standards docs where appropriate

[gregtucker]

Some of these papers include (not exhaustive):

• Bangerth, W., & Heister, T. (2013). What makes computational open source software libraries successful?. Computational Science & Discovery, 6(1), 015010.

• Benureau, F. C., & Rougier, N. P. (2018). Re-run, repeat, reproduce, reuse, replicate: transforming code into scientific contributions. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 11, 69.

• Hastings, J., Haug, K., and C. Steinbeck. 2014. Ten recommendations for software engineering in research. GigaScience 3:31

• Taschuk, M., & Wilson, G. (2017). Ten simple rules for making research software more robust. PLoS computational biology, 13(4).

• Wilson, G., Aruliah, D. A., Brown, C. T., Hong, N. P. C., Davis, M., Guy, R. T., ... & Waugh, B. (2014). Best practices for scientific computing. PLoS biology, 12(1).

• Wilson, G., Bryan, J., Cranston, K., Kitzes, J., Nederbragt, L., & Teal, T. K. (2017). Good enough practices in scientific computing. PLoS computational biology, 13(6).

[cmbarton]

This is great. Thanks.

…

On May 18, 2020, at 3:15 PM, Greg Tucker ***@***.***> wrote: Some of these papers include (not exhaustive): Bangerth, W., & Heister, T. (2013). What makes computational open source software libraries successful?. Computational Science & Discovery, 6(1), 015010. Benureau, F. C., & Rougier, N. P. (2018). Re-run, repeat, reproduce, reuse, replicate: transforming code into scientific contributions. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 11, 69. Hastings, J., Haug, K., and C. Steinbeck. 2014. Ten recommendations for software engineering in research. GigaScience 3:31 Taschuk, M., & Wilson, G. (2017). Ten simple rules for making research software more robust. PLoS computational biology, 13(4). Wilson, G., Aruliah, D. A., Brown, C. T., Hong, N. P. C., Davis, M., Guy, R. T., ... & Waugh, B. (2014). Best practices for scientific computing. PLoS biology, 12(1). Wilson, G., Bryan, J., Cranston, K., Kitzes, J., Nederbragt, L., & Teal, T. K. (2017). Good enough practices in scientific computing. PLoS computational biology, 13(6). — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#104>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACENLL2KIDZ27UTJIQO5DLDRSGXPZANCNFSM4NEO3RIQ>.

[yolandagil]

Based on https://scientificpaperofthefuture.org/ and https://scientificpaperofthefuture.org/gpf/, this paper contains a wealth of best practices:

Towards the Geoscience Paper of the Future: Best Practices for Documenting and Sharing Research from Data to Software to Provenance. Gil, Y.; David, C. H.; Demir, I.; Essawy, B. T.; Fulweiler, R. W.; Goodall, J. L.; Karlstrom, L.; Lee, H.; Mills, H. J.; Oh, J.; Pierce, S. A; Pope, A.; Tzeng, M. W.; Villamizar, S. R.; and Yu, X. Earth and Space Science, 3. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000136

[yolandagil]

The best practices in come from an early career advisory board of 30 researchers. We learned a lot about the barriers to adopt the best practices. One of them was that people would only pay attention about best practices IN THE CONTEXT OF WRITING A PAPER, so that is why the initiative was dubbed the Scientific Paper of the Future. The training materials here have a lot of material that addresses the concerns that we heard: https://scientificpaperofthefuture.org/materials.html.