Skip to main content
Cornell University
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > cs > arXiv:2306.03255

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Computer Science > Software Engineering

arXiv:2306.03255 (cs)
[Submitted on 5 Jun 2023]

Title:Evaluation of software impact designed for biomedical research: Are we measuring what's meaningful?

Authors:Awan Afiaz (1 and 2), Andrey Ivanov (3), John Chamberlin (4), David Hanauer (5), Candace Savonen (2), Mary J Goldman (6), Martin Morgan (7), Michael Reich (8), Alexander Getka (9), Aaron Holmes (10 and 11 and 12 and 13), Sarthak Pati (9), Dan Knight (10 and 11 and 12 and 13), Paul C. Boutros (10 and 11 and 12 and 13), Spyridon Bakas (9), J. Gregory Caporaso (14), Guilherme Del Fiol (15), Harry Hochheiser (16), Brian Haas (17), Patrick D. Schloss (18), James A. Eddy (19), Jake Albrecht (19), Andrey Fedorov (20), Levi Waldron (21), Ava M. Hoffman (2), Richard L. Bradshaw (15), Jeffrey T. Leek (2), Carrie Wright (2) ((1) Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, (2) Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, (3) Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, (4) Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, (5) Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, (6) University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, (7) Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, (8) University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, (9) University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, (10) Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, (11) Institute for Precision Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, (12) Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, (13) Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, (14) Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, (15) Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, (16) Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, (17) Methods Development Laboratory, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, (18) Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, (19) Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, (20) Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, (21) Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY)
View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluation of software impact designed for biomedical research: Are we measuring what's meaningful?, by Awan Afiaz (1 and 2) and 107 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Software is vital for the advancement of biology and medicine. Analysis of usage and impact metrics can help developers determine user and community engagement, justify additional funding, encourage additional use, identify unanticipated use cases, and help define improvement areas. However, there are challenges associated with these analyses including distorted or misleading metrics, as well as ethical and security concerns. More attention to the nuances involved in capturing impact across the spectrum of biological software is needed. Furthermore, some tools may be especially beneficial to a small audience, yet may not have compelling typical usage metrics. We propose more general guidelines, as well as strategies for more specific types of software. We highlight outstanding issues regarding how communities measure or evaluate software impact. To get a deeper understanding of current practices for software evaluations, we performed a survey of participants in the Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) program funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We also investigated software among this community and others to assess how often infrastructure that supports such evaluations is implemented and how this impacts rates of papers describing usage of the software. We find that developers recognize the utility of analyzing software usage, but struggle to find the time or funding for such analyses. We also find 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 seem to be associated with increased usage rates. Our findings can help scientific software developers make the most out of evaluations of their software.
Comments: 25 total pages (17 pages for manuscript and 8 pages for the supplement). There are 2 figures
Subjects: Software Engineering (cs.SE); Other Quantitative Biology (q-bio.OT)
Cite as: arXiv:2306.03255 [cs.SE]
  (or arXiv:2306.03255v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.03255
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Carrie Wright [view email]
[v1] Mon, 5 Jun 2023 21:15:05 UTC (508 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluation of software impact designed for biomedical research: Are we measuring what's meaningful?, by Awan Afiaz (1 and 2) and 107 other authors
  • View PDF
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
cs.SE
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2023-06
Change to browse by:
cs
q-bio
q-bio.OT

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack