Verified Commit d539a3d1 authored by Dworatzyk, Katharina's avatar Dworatzyk, Katharina Committed by Huste, Tobias (FWCC) - 111645
Browse files

Add statistics about software citation

parent ee34748a
---
title: "HIFIS Software Survey 2020 - A community perspective"
title: "HIFIS Software Survey 2020 - A Community Perspective"
date: 2021-01-15
authors:
- dolling
- dworatzyk
layout: blogpost
title_image: default
excerpt_separator: <!--more-->
categories:
- report
tags:
- survey
- community
excerpt:
"
Data from 467 respondents of the HIFIS Survey 2020 were analyzed to give an overview of research software
developers and their day-to-day work at Helmholtz. The information will help us to better understand the challenges
of software development from the researchers' perspective and to learn about how Software Services could better
support them.
"
---
Data from 467 respondents of the HIFIS Survey 2020 were analyzed to give an overview of research software developers at
Helmholtz and their day-to-day work.
While software development plays a crucial role in all six research domains, only about half of the respondents
are satisfied with the support at their centers.
Results of this survey will help us to better understand how HIFIS Software Services could improve this situation.
### Survey outreach
<!--more-->
## Survey outreach
In the beginning of 2020, the HIFIS Software Survey was conducted to learn about current software development practices
within Helmholtz and to assess the demand for specific services to support researchers in their day-to-day work.
For the community team, it was particularly important to get a better grasp of who and to better understand their needs of
One approach to the data was to draw a picture of the "typical" research software developer, to evaluate support currently provided
and to identify more specific challenges that should be addressed in our future work.
For the community team, it was particularly important to get a better grasp of who develops software and to better
understand their needs for technological and non-technological support.
So our approach to the data was to draw a picture of the "typical" research software developer, to evaluate
the support currently provided and to identify additional challenges that should be addressed in our future work.
Seventeen of the 19 Helmholtz centers and 3 external researchers participated in this survey, providing 467 individual responses.
Seventeen of the 19 Helmholtz centers and 3 external researchers participated in this survey,
providing 467 individual responses.
With about 42.000 employees within Helmholtz we can say that at least 1% are concerned with software development
(and yet found the time to fill in our survey - thank you <3).
(and yet found the time to complete our survey - thank you <3).
Here is an overview of each center's contribution to our survey and the relative number of Helmholtz employees per center:
![Fig 1. Survey outreach]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/survey-outreach.svg)
![Survey outreach]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/survey-outreach.svg)
As we can, we reached most Helmholtz centers except for two and received responses from each of the six main research domains.
As we can, we reached most Helmholtz centers except for two and received responses from each of the six research domains.
Compared to their relative headcount, some centers contributed over-proportionately to the HIFIS survey.
Well done, DKFZ!
### Software made by Helmholtz
Now, let's have a look who stands behind the excellent software solutions made by Helmholtz:
## Research software made by Helmholtz
Now, let's have a look who stands behind the research software made by Helmholtz:
The median software developer in our survey has 8 years of research experience and 9 years of software development experience,
spends 49.5% of the working time on software development, and uses 3 different programming languages at work.
Languages that are mostly used are Python (76.7%), C++ (45.6%), and R (28.3%)
\- for details see this [blog post on programming languages](https://software.hifis.net/report/2020/11/27/survey-results-language-vcs).
Software is typically developed in a team with 2-5 other developers for a user base of 2-10 persons.
The median software developer in our survey has 8 years of research experience, 9 years of software development experience,
spends 49.5% of the working time on software development, and uses 3 different programming languages at work,
mostly Python (76.7%), C++ (45.6%), or R (28.3%) - for details see
this [blog post on programming languages](https://software.hifis.net/report/2020/11/27/survey-results-language-vcs).
These results support what has been suspected earlier, namely, that software development is fundamental to researchers' work.
Indeed, the more time survey participants spent on research related work, the more experienced they were in terms of software development
as shown by the figure below.
Indeed, the more time survey participants spent on research related work, the more experienced they were in terms of software development as shown by the figure below.
The question which role software development plays in research could then be answered: an important one!
![Fig 2. Research, software and support]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/research-software-support.svg)
![Research, software and support]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/research-software-support.svg)
The question which role software development plays in research could then be answered: an important one!
Given the strong link between software development and research, we wanted to know whether researchers felt sufficiently
supported at their research centers regarding software development and training.
The answer was a classical Jein. While half (50.8%) of the respondents seemed satisfied with the current state,
Given the strong link between software development and research, we also wanted to know whether researchers felt
sufficiently supported at their research centers regarding software development and training.
The answer was a classic _Jein_.
While half (50.8%) of the respondents seemed satisfied with the current state,
the other half of the respondents (49.2%) reported that they needed more support.
Clearly, we wanted to know which kind of support they needed. So we asked them.
To find out which support activities they were most interested in and which services we should focus on in the future,
we let them choose from a list of predefined services.
In order to get a more complete picture of what could be improved, we also included a few open response questions asking
respondents about their wishes and suggestions for a good software development support and their preferred kind of learning.
we first let them choose from a list of predefined services.
As shown in the figure above, training (68.7%), tools (58.1%) and consultation on best practices (52.5%)
were chosen by the majority of respondents.
In order to get a more complete picture of what could be improved,
we also included a few open response questions asking respondents about their wishes and suggestions
for a good software development support and their preferred kind of learning.
Word and code frequency analysis gave a fairly clear picture of the respondents' needs:
![Fig 3. More than words]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/word-code-cloud.svg)
![More than words]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/word-code-cloud.svg)
As expected, basic and advanced training courses, consulting offerings, in particular on software licensing,
and a central, easily accessible infrastructure, were at the top of the wish list.
An additional aspect, that was not directly addressed by our survey, was the recognition and regulation of open science
practices and open source development.
It was frequently mentioned by respondents (% of all mentions) that they experience a lack of social and professional
recognition for accomplishing tasks that contribute to the and ... .
As expected, basic and advanced training courses, consulting offerings, and a centrally provided, easily accessible
infrastructure were at the top of the wish list. Support on software licensing was mentioned as a particularly important
topic.
An additional aspect, that was not directly addressed by our survey, was the recognition and regulation of sustainable
and open source development.
It was frequently mentioned by respondents that they experienced a lack of awareness for best practices in software
development among both colleagues and superiors.
While, in view of its complexity, providing official guidelines and best practice guides was seen as one of the basic
conditions for better software development, the lack of social and professional recognition was discussed as a strong
demotivator to put such guidelines into use.
### Sustainable Software Practices
The building of a strong community that promotes and commits to common standards of sustainable software development,
including findability, re-usability, maintainability, extendability, citability
raise awareness and mutual support
In particular from a community perspective, it is important to have a closer look as to what extent best practices
of sustainable software development are already established in the Helmholtz Association.
Our survey included questions about sharing and publishing own software as well as referencing software in publications.
## Sustainable Software Practices
Now, let's have a look where we currently stand regarding sustainable software development:
To get a first overview to what extent best practices of sustainable software development are already established in the
Helmholtz Association, our survey included questions about sharing and publishing own software as well as software citation.
![Fig 4. Sustainable software practices]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/sustainable-software-practices.svg)
![Sustainable software practices]({{ site.directory.images | relative_url }}/posts/2021-01-15-hifis-survey-results-community/sustainable-software-practices.svg)
Results show that most respondents share their code regularly with the own research group,
sometimes with the research organization and research community but never with the general public.
They publish their code regularly on internal platforms or public code sharing platforms like GitHub but never on a research repository or a software package index.
Code comments, README files and installation instructions are regularly provided by most respondents, user manuals, requirement specification and technical documentation sometimes,
while release notes, contributor guides and developer guides are almost never provided.
Sharing the code and citability ->
Licensing
While this suggests that there is at least , it is surprising that most respondents do not license their code
Visibility of research software and reproducibility of results ok but increase in re-usability
sometimes with the research organization or research community but never with the general public.
They publish their code regularly on internal platforms or public platforms like GitHub but never on a
research repository or a software package index.
Code comments, README files and installation instructions are regularly provided by most respondents, user manuals,
requirement specification, technical documentation, and release notes sometimes, whereas contributor guides and developer
guides are almost never provided.
Considering the many uncertainties regarding software licenses described in the free text section, it is not surprising
that almost 20% of the respondents stated that they usually do not license their code.
Finally, we wanted to know whether respondents reference software in a research publication - yes, 82% do using the name (79%),
link (73%) or doi (55%) of the publication - and what they do to make it easier to cite their software in a research publication.
Surprisingly, only 45% take care of the citability of their software, of which the vast majority (97%) uses a citation
hint in the README file and a few respondents (11.3%) use a separate citation file.
### Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that in addition to providing training and infrastructure, HIFIS software services
raising the awareness for and
which enable the collaboration between institutes, centers and research communities in the first place.
## Outlook
In addition to providing infrastructure and formal training or consultation in different areas of software development,
it is one goal of HIFIS Software Services is to support the building of a strong community that promotes and commits to
common standards of sustainable software development and to help to improve the re-usability, maintainability, and
extendability of research software.
As this survey shows, we are on the right track (more or less) but we are not there yet.
It seems that in particular in regard to software licensing some more work is needed.
Moreover, we would like to see the communication and knowledge exchange across Helmholtz centers improved.
So, join us for one of the next [Hacky Hour](LINK TO SCHEDULE) sessions and share your code, your experience, your
challenges, or your opinion because:
Sharing is caring!
\ No newline at end of file
Sharing is caring!
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment