### Assessing open source software as a scholarly contributionAssessing open source software as a scholarly contribution

Access Restriction
Subscribed

 Author Kirkpatrick, Arthur E. ♦ Hafer, Lou Source ACM Digital Library Content type Text Publisher Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) File Format PDF Language English
 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. Description Affiliation: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (Hafer, Lou; Kirkpatrick, Arthur E.) Age Range 18 to 22 years ♦ above 22 year Educational Use Research Education Level UG and PG Learning Resource Type Article Publisher Date 2005-08-01 Publisher Place New York Journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) Volume Number 52 Issue Number 12 Page Count 4 Starting Page 126 Ending Page 129

#### Open content in new tab

Source: ACM Digital Library