Affiliation:
1. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia
Abstract
Introduction
Academic computer science has an odd relationship with software: Publishing papers about software is considered a distinctly stronger contribution than publishing the software. The historical reasons for this paradox no longer apply, but their legacy remains. This limits researchers who see the open-source software movement as an opportunity to make a scholarly contribution. Expanded definitions of scholarship acknowledge both application and discovery as important components.
1
One obstacle remains: evaluation. To raise software to the status of a first-class contribution, we propose "best practices" for the evaluation of the scholarly contribution of open-source software.
Typically, scholars who develop software do not include it as a primary contribution for performance reviews. Instead, they write articles about the software and present the articles as contributions. This conflation of articles and software serves neither medium well. An article describes an original intellectual contribution consisting of an idea, the argument for its importance and correctness, and supporting data. In contrast, software is more often an implementation of prior ideas in a usable form. It bridges the often considerable gap between an idea and the practical application of that idea. The original idea and its implementation represent distinct kinds of contribution.
The critical gap is the perceived incomparability of these two contributions. Lacking a concise description adapted to the traditional practices of performance review committees, software is difficult to evaluate as a scholarly contribution and is often relegated to second-class status. We propose a framework for common assessment based on widely accepted definitions of scholarship. Within this general framework, we consider the material and procedures that a performance review committee uses to evaluate a publication. We then describe how software can be summarized in a compatible form of bibliographic citation and supplementary material.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Reference6 articles.
1. A new social contract for research
2. National Research Council. Computing the future: A broader agenda for computer science and engineering. National Academy Press Washington D.C. 1992. National Research Council. Computing the future: A broader agenda for computer science and engineering. National Academy Press Washington D.C. 1992.
3. A new framework for computer science and engineering
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献