

Software plays a central role in:

However, software is often less documented, shared and recognised than data or publications
Software is a valuable research output
in its own right
| Dimension | What should be in place? | Examples / Tools | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Version control | Commit history, releases | Git | |
| Code source | Public repository | GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg | |
| Archiving | Long-term preservation | Zenodo, Software Heritage | |
| Identification | Persistent & unique identifier | DOI, SWHID | |
| Documentation | Installation, documentation, usage | README, Website, Vignettes | |
| License | Explicit open-source licence | GPL, MIT, Apache 2.0 | |
| Authorship | Maintainer, contributors & authors | ORCID, ROR, roles | |
| Citation metadata | Structured citation information | CITATION.cff, Codemeta | |
| Quality | Unit tests, CI/CD | testthat, GitHub Actions | |
| Community | Contribution guidelines, code of conduct | CONTRIBUTING.md, CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md |
It describes:
Visibility
Make research software discoverable
by the scientific community
Recognition
Give credit to software developers
and contributors
Traceability
Establish a link between software
and scientific publications
Reproducibility
Document methods, workflows and
execution conditions
Reusability
Enable other teams to understand,
test and adapt the software
Research article
Why was the research conducted,
and what were the findings?
Data paper
What data were produced, and how
are they structured and documented?
Methods paper
What method was developed, why was it designed, and how can it be applied?
Software paper
What software was developed, how
does it work, and how can it be reused?
Same research ecosystem
Complementary outputs
A FRB-CESAB research project on Foraminifera response to climatic stress
7 x Research articles
Published in various journals
(Science, Nature, J. of Biogeography, etc.)
Publishing research software helps preserving an essential part of the scientific process