Documenting research software in engineering science

The reuse of research software needs good documentation, however, the documentation in particular is often criticized. Especially in non-IT specific disciplines, the lack of documentation is attributed to the lack of training, the lack of time or missing rewards. This article addresses the hypothesis that scientists do document but do not know exactly what they need to document, why, and for whom. In order to evaluate the actual documentation practice of research software, we examined existing recommendations, and we evaluated their implementation in everyday practice using a concrete example from the engineering sciences and compared the findings with best practice examples. To get a broad overview of what documentation of research software entailed, we defined categories and used them to conduct the research. Our results show that the big picture of what documentation of research software means is missing. Recommendations do not consider the important role of researchers, who write research software, whose documentation takes mainly place in their research articles. Moreover, we show that research software always has a history that influences the documentation.

Automated summary

The reuse of research software requires good documentation, but the current documentation is often criticized. This article discusses the hypothesis that scientists do document, but are unsure about what, why, and for whom. The research evaluated existing recommendations and their implementation, and compared them with best practice examples. The results show a lack of understanding of the overall picture of research software documentation, and suggest that the important role of researchers who write research software in their articles is not considered. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the documentation of research software is influenced by its history.