Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, United States.
Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, 98109, United States.
Bioinformatics. 2024 Aug 2;40(8). doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btae469.
Software is vital for the advancement of biology and medicine. Impact evaluations of scientific software have primarily emphasized traditional citation metrics of associated papers, despite these metrics inadequately capturing the dynamic picture of impact and despite challenges with improper citation.
To understand how software developers evaluate their tools, we conducted a survey of participants in the Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) program funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We found that although developers realize the value of more extensive metric collection, they find a lack of funding and time hindering. We also investigated software among this community for how often infrastructure that supports more nontraditional metrics were implemented and how this impacted rates of papers describing usage of the software. We found that infrastructure such as social media presence, more in-depth documentation, the presence of software health metrics, and clear information on how to contact developers seemed to be associated with increased mention rates. Analysing more diverse metrics can enable developers to better understand user engagement, justify continued funding, identify novel use cases, pinpoint improvement areas, and ultimately amplify their software's impact. Challenges are associated, including distorted or misleading metrics, as well as ethical and security concerns. More attention to nuances involved in capturing impact across the spectrum of biomedical software is needed. For funders and developers, we outline guidance based on experience from our community. By considering how we evaluate software, we can empower developers to create tools that more effectively accelerate biological and medical research progress.
More information about the analysis, as well as access to data and code is available at https://github.com/fhdsl/ITCR_Metrics_manuscript_website.
软件对于推动生物学和医学的发展至关重要。尽管这些指标不能充分捕捉影响的动态图景,并且存在引用不当的问题,但对科学软件的影响评估主要强调与相关论文相关的传统引文指标。
为了了解软件开发人员如何评估他们的工具,我们对美国国家癌症研究所(NCI)资助的癌症研究信息技术(ITCR)计划的参与者进行了调查。我们发现,尽管开发人员意识到更广泛的指标收集的价值,但他们发现缺乏资金和时间是阻碍因素。我们还研究了这个社区中的软件,以了解支持更多非传统指标的基础设施实施的频率,以及这如何影响描述软件使用情况的论文比例。我们发现,社交媒体存在、更深入的文档、软件健康指标的存在以及如何联系开发人员的清晰信息等基础设施似乎与更高的提及率有关。分析更多样化的指标可以使开发人员更好地了解用户参与度、证明持续资助的合理性、识别新的用例、确定改进领域,并最终增强其软件的影响力。挑战也随之而来,包括扭曲或误导性指标,以及道德和安全问题。需要更加关注生物医学软件影响的各个方面所涉及的细微差别。对于资助者和开发者,我们根据我们社区的经验提供了指导。通过考虑我们如何评估软件,我们可以使开发人员能够创建更有效地加速生物学和医学研究进展的工具。
更多关于分析的信息,以及数据和代码的访问权限可在 https://github.com/fhdsl/ITCR_Metrics_manuscript_website 上获得。