Being in software design myself, I want to look at it from the other
side. If I produce software I want to get from it:
1) Gratitude from the users, preferably expressed in the form of citations;
2) Nice collaborations that allow me to use my, novel software at the
edge of science;
3) The possibility to one way or another raise funds for future software
design.
Point 1 normally goes OK, it is my estimate that, for example, WHAT IF
is cited properly in 25-50% of all cases it is used, while for
WHAT_CHECK this percentage is a bit lower. Point 2 sometimes goes OK,
but point 3 really is a problem. I maintain WHAT IF and WHAT_CHECK using
hospital money, which allows me to keep these facilities free of cost
for you.
When I was the first application-note editor for the journal
Bioinformatics, I defined a series of rules for software publications
that included: 1) The software must work as advertised; 2) the software
must be freely obtainable (to academics), or the webserver/webservice
must be free to use; 3) There must be good Help facilities and examples
that work as advertised; and 4, and this point is relevant for the
present discussion, the software must remain available for at least five
years (this has nowadays been shrunk to three years, I believe).
When I referee an application note these days, I look at the track
record of the group that produced the software. If they published
software over the past few years and that software is now gone, then I
tell them to first get their old products back up and running and that
they can resubmit their new software next year.
So, I agree with Robbie, but also with the many people who said that
'we, ourselves' are the problem, not the system or the journals.
Greetings
Gert
