FAIR-USE4OS: Guidelines for Creating Impactful Open-Source Software
0
💬
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes extending the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guidelines to include criteria for evaluating whether software adheres to best practices in open source development.
- The new "FAIR-USE" guidelines incorporate "User-Centered, Sustainable, Equitable" principles to ensure open source projects are developed with user input, accessibility, and long-term sustainability in mind.
- Adopting the FAIR-USE approach can help funders and researchers better assess and plan successful open source software projects.
Plain English Explanation
The paper suggests building on the existing FAIR guidelines for research data management. By adding new criteria related to being "User-Centered, Sustainable, and Equitable" (FAIR-USE), the authors believe open source software projects can be designed and evaluated more effectively.
The key idea is that simply releasing code on a public repository isn't enough - open source projects need to actively incorporate user feedback from the start, ensure the software is accessible to all potential users, and plan for the project's long-term viability. This holistic FAIR-USE approach can help open source initiatives have greater real-world impact.
As more funders require research software to be open source, the FAIR-USE guidelines provide a framework to ensure this open source code is truly well-designed and sustainable, not just publicly available. The goal is to move beyond the minimum FAIR criteria and create open source software that is genuinely user-friendly and long-lasting.
Technical Explanation
The paper extends the existing FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guidelines by adding new criteria for evaluating open source software practices. Specifically, the authors propose the "FAIR-USE" framework, which incorporates principles of being "User-Centered, Sustainable, and Equitable."
The FAIR-USE guidelines aim to ensure open source projects are designed with active user input from the beginning, have interfaces and features that are accessible to all potential stakeholders, and have a plan for long-term maintenance and updates. This goes beyond simply releasing code on a public repository, as is sometimes the case even under the FAIR guidelines.
The authors argue that as more research funders require open source software as an output, it is important to have a comprehensive framework like FAIR-USE to evaluate the quality and sustainability of these open source projects. This can help ensure the software has the greatest possible real-world impact.
The paper references examples like the Moodle LMS usability assessment and lessons from formally verified software systems to illustrate the importance of user-centered design and long-term sustainability in open source projects.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling case for extending the FAIR guidelines to better suit the needs of open source software development. The FAIR-USE criteria seem like a reasonable and holistic approach to ensuring open source projects are designed with real-world impact in mind.
However, the paper does not provide much detail on how the FAIR-USE framework would be implemented in practice. More research may be needed to develop specific assessment criteria and processes for evaluating open source projects against these guidelines.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or trade-offs involved in adhering to all the FAIR-USE principles. For example, balancing user feedback, accessibility, and long-term sustainability could introduce complexities or tensions that would need to be carefully navigated.
Further work may also be needed to understand how the FAIR-USE guidelines could be tailored for different types of open source projects, as the needs and constraints may vary significantly. The assessment of open-source language models, for instance, may require a different approach than a community-driven software project.
Overall, the FAIR-USE framework presents an interesting and potentially valuable extension of the FAIR guidelines. But more research and practical implementation details would be helpful to fully evaluate its efficacy and understand the best ways to apply it.
Conclusion
This paper proposes expanding the popular FAIR guidelines for research data management to create a new "FAIR-USE" framework for evaluating open source software projects. The additional "User-Centered, Sustainable, Equitable" criteria are intended to ensure open source initiatives are designed with real-world impact in mind, incorporating user feedback, accessibility, and long-term viability.
As more funders require open source outputs, the FAIR-USE guidelines could help researchers and developers create software that truly adheres to best practices in open source development. While more work may be needed to refine the implementation details, the core idea of holistically assessing open source projects appears promising for improving the quality and success of these community-driven initiatives.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
💬
0
FAIR-USE4OS: Guidelines for Creating Impactful Open-Source Software
Raphael Sonabend, Hugo Gruson, Leo Wolansky, Agnes Kiragga, Daniel S. Katz
This paper extends the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guidelines to provide criteria for assessing if software conforms to best practices in open source. By adding 'USE' (User-Centered, Sustainable, Equitable), software development can adhere to open source best practice by incorporating user-input early on, ensuring front-end designs are accessible to all possible stakeholders, and planning long-term sustainability alongside software design. The FAIR-USE4OS guidelines will allow funders and researchers to more effectively evaluate and plan open source software projects. There is good evidence of funders increasingly mandating that all funded research software is open source; however, even under the FAIR guidelines, this could simply mean software released on public repositories with a Zenodo DOI. By creating FAIR-USE software, best practice can be demonstrated from the very beginning of the design process and the software has the greatest chance of success by being impactful.
Read more4/4/2024
📉
0
Open Source in Lab Management
Julien Cohen-Adad
This document explores the advantages of integrating open source software and practices in managing a scientific lab, emphasizing reproducibility and the avoidance of pitfalls. It details practical applications from website management using GitHub Pages to organizing datasets in compliance with BIDS standards, highlights the importance of continuous testing for data integrity, IT management through Ansible for efficient system configuration, open source software development. The broader goal is to promote transparent, reproducible science by adopting open source tools. This approach not only saves time but exposes students to best practices, enhancing the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research.
Read more5/14/2024
🤔
0
FAIR evaluation of ten widely used chemical datasets: Lessons learned and recommendations
Marcos Da Silveira, Oona Freudenthal, Louis Deladiennee
This document focuses on databases disseminating data on (hazardous) substances found on the North American and the European (EU) market. The goal is to analyse the FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability) of published open data on these substances and to qualitatively evaluate to what extend the selected databases already fulfil the criteria set out in the commission draft regulation on a common data chemicals platform. We implemented two complementary approaches: Manual, and Automatic. The manual approach is based on online questionnaires. These questionnaires provide a structured approach to evaluating FAIRness by guiding users through a series of questions related to the FAIR principles. They are particularly useful for initiating discussions on FAIR implementation within research teams and for identifying areas that require further attention. Automated tools for FAIRness assessment, such as F-UJI and FAIR Checker, are gaining prominence and are continuously under development. Unlike manual tools, automated tools perform a series of tests automatically starting from a dereferenceable URL to the data resource to be evaluated. We analysed ten widely adopted datasets managed in Europe and North America. The highest score from automatic analysis was 54/100. The manual analysis shows that several FAIR metrics were satisfied, but not detectable by automatic tools because there is no metadata, or the format of the information was not a standard one. Thus, it was not interpretable by the tool. We present the details of the analysis and tables summarizing the outcomes, the issues, and the suggestions to address these issues.
Read more7/23/2024
🎯
0
Individual context-free online community health indicators fail to identify open source software sustainability
Yo Yehudi, Carole Goble, Caroline Jay
The global value of open source software is estimated to be in the billions or trillions worldwide1, but despite this, it is often under-resourced and subject to high-impact security vulnerabilities and stability failures2,3. In order to investigate factors contributing to open source community longevity, we monitored thirty-eight open source projects over the period of a year, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on open science-related online code-oriented communities. We measured performance indicators, using both subjective and qualitative measures (participant surveys), as well as using computational scripts to retrieve and analyse indicators associated with these projects' online source control codebases. None of the projects were abandoned during this period, and only one project entered a planned shutdown. Project ages spanned from under one year to over forty years old at the start of the study, and results were highly heterogeneous, showing little commonality across documentation, mean response times for issues and code contributions, and available funding/staffing resources. Whilst source code-based indicators were able to offer some insights into project activity, we observed that similar indicators across different projects often had very different meanings when context was taken into account. We conclude that the individual context-free metrics we studied were not sufficient or essential for project longevity and sustainability, and might even become detrimental if used to support high-stakes decision making. When attempting to understand an online open community's longer-term sustainability, we recommend that researchers avoid cross-project quantitative comparisons, and advise instead that they use single-project-level assessments which combine quantitative measures with contextualising qualitative data.
Read more5/10/2024