Posts

Posted on

Big news for RIO: we join the club of SPARC Innovators

The latest SPARC Innovator Award was announced yesterday and (we must admit it’s hard to hide the joy) – it’s RIO!

SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) is a global coalition committed to making Open the default for research and education. Their bi-annual Innovator Award goes to individuals and initiatives who dare to challenge the status quo in scholarly communication.


As SPARC Innovators, we join a prestigious club of awardees including the OA Button, the authors of the Panton Principles and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) as well as PLOS ONE, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Health Research Alliance and the World Bank, to name just a few.

But what is more substantial for us is this recognition from a community-focused organisation that aligns with our principles of openness and transparency in scholarly communication. From the very start, we believed in the potential of RIO. Now, we have official recognition that our project has the spark of innovation to challenge the status quo and to introduce a new dimension of openness into scholarly communication.

Why RIO?

SPARC has clear criteria for selecting its Innovators that in summary include noteworthy contributions to openness, technological advancements and challenging the status quo in scholarly communications. Here is how we believe RIO met these points:

From the very start RIO was set to innovate traditional science publishing practices by opening up for publications from across the research cycle. Our list of publication types includes Ideas, Grant Proposals, methods, Data, PhD Project Plans, Project Reports and Communication Briefs.

By publishing results from every step of the research life-span, we hoped not only to provide authors an opportunity to get credit for their efforts, but also to introduce a publishing environment that ensures maximum transparency and encourages exchange of ideas and expertise. Special functionality allows linking each published output to UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to map its social relevance and promote interdisciplinary research.

To add to this mix, we also installed a transparent multi-option peer-review process, including options for author-supplier pre-submission and public post-publication peer-reviews.

All these options are available in a unique online XML-based collaborative writing, reviewing, editing and publishing environment powered by our ARPHA Publishing Platform.

What’s in for the future?

When we first announced RIO in September 2015, we promised the community a one-of-a-kind innovative journal. Since then, we’ve had many people believe in us and show us their support by joining our Advisory and Editorial Boards and, of course, by publishing with us too.

We want to express our thanks for all of the support and trust our editors, authors, reviewers, readers, and others offered us from the very beginning.
We will not ‘rest on our laurels’: this is still just the beginning for the journal. We hope to grow engagement, partnerships, content, impact, quality, readership, awareness and transparency. The most exciting Research Ideas and Outcomes are still to come…

Posted on

PostDoc Project Plan invites collaborators to study how plant lice cope with variability

While Climate change steadily takes its toll, promising to raise temperatures around the world by at least 1.5 °C within the next 100 years, organisms have already started defending their species’ existence in their own ways. Possibly, such is the case of plant lice, which evoked the curiosity of PhD student Jens Joschinski with their reproductive strategy, which shifts from sexual to asexual as the days grow shorter in the autumn.aphids

Entomologist Jens Joschinski, currently studying at the University of Würzburg, Germany, is interested in finding out to what extent this advanced reproductive strategy is affected by variable and unpredictable conditions. Do plant lice spread their risks to reduce their losses (like investors that buy hedge funds), or do they put all their eggs in one basket? If plant lice manage their risks, does this adaptation compromise fitness?

By formally publishing his research idea as a PostDoc Project Plant in the open access journal Research Ideas and Outcomes, he hopes to find fellow scientists to collaborate with, as well as a host institutions.

Plant lice reproduce asexually during summer, which means that the mother give live birth to offspring by cloning herself. Then, as the days become shorter, indicating the approaching winter, the plant lice begin to produce eggs, since only they tolerate low temperature and can overwinter. However, there is a transitional period when a fraction of the same species still produce asexual offspring, which is what made Jens Joschinski wonder if this is an intended evolutionary response to climate change.

In order to assess the link between variable climates and the transition to sexual offspring, the PhD student plans to study at least 12 plant lice clones from different environments across Europe, and induce reproductive switches under controlled laboratory conditions. Afterwards, he is to assess the fitness and the ‘cost’ of this microevolution phenomenon.

The PostDoc Project Plan is to build on Jens Joschinski’s research done as part of his doctoral thesis, which is to be submitted for publication later this year. Then, while also being trained in evolutionary biology, he concluded that the plant lice are active during the day, which explains why they suffer fitness constraints related to the shorter days.

“The intended methods leave room for collaborative side-projects beyond the study question (e.g. molecular control of photoperiodism, or sharing aphid lines from throughout Europe), so this article might be of interest to anyone working with aphids”, he points to his fellow entomologists. “In addition, I would be happy to receive feedback from experts in bet-hedging theory, phenotypic plasticity and photoperiodism.”

###

Original source:

Joschinski J (2016) Benefits and costs of aphid phenological bet-hedging strategies. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9580. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9580

Additional information:

Funding was provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG), collaborative research center SFB 1047 “Insect timing“.

Posted on

Publishing grant proposals, presubmission

There are a lot of really interesting works being published over at Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO).  If you aren’t already following the updates you can do so via RSS, Twitter, or via email (scroll to the bottom for sign-up).

In this post I’m going to discuss why Chad Hammond’s contribution is so remarkable and why it could represent an exciting model for a more transparent and more immediate future of scholarly communications.

Version1

 

 

 

So, what’s special?

Well, to state the obvious first: it’s a grant proposal, not a research article. RIO Journal has published quite a lot of research proposals now, it’s becoming a real strength of the journal. But that’s not the really interesting thing about it. The really cool thing is that Chad published this grant proposal with RIO before it was submitted it to the funder (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) for evaluation.

You’ll see the publication date of Version 1 of the work is 24th March 2016. Pleasingly, after publication in RIO Chad’s proposal was evaluated by CIHR and awarded research funding. Chad received news of this in late April:

…and the story gets even better from here because thanks to RIO’s unique technology called ARPHA, Chad was able to re-import his published article back into editing mode, to update the proposal to acknowledge that it had been funded:

This proposal was submitted to and received funding from the annual Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) competition for postdoctoral fellowships.

The updated proposal was then checked by the editorial team and republished as an updated version of the original proposal: Version 2, making-use of CrossMark technology to formally link the two versions and to make sure readers are always made aware if a newer version of the work exists. Chad’s updated proposal now has a little ‘Funded’ button appended to it (see below), to indicate that this proposal has been successfully funded. We hope to see many more such successfully funded proposals published at RIO.

Title and metadata

 

 

 

With permission given, Chad was also able to supply some of the reviewer comments passed to him from CIHR reviewers as supplementary data to the updated Version 2 proposal. These will undoubtedly provide invaluable insight into reviewing processes for many.

Finally, for funders and publishing-tech geeks: you should really take note of the lovely machine-readable XML-formatted version of Chad’s proposal. Pensoft has machine-readable XML output as standard, not just PDF and HTML. Funding agencies around the world would do well to think closely about the value of having XML-formatted machine-readable grant proposal submissions. There’s serious value to this and I think it’s something we’ll see more of in the future. Pensoft is actively looking to work with funders to develop further these ideas and approaches for genuinelyadding-value to scholarly communications.
RIO is truly an innovative journal don’t you think?

References

Version 1:
Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit,and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8615. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8615

Version 2:
Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9115. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9115

 

This blog post was originally published on Ross Mounce’s blog.

Posted on

Sharing biodiversity data: Best tools and practices via the EU-funded project EU BON

Due to the exponential growth of biodiversity information in recent years, the questions of how to mobilize such vast amounts of data has become more tangible than ever. Best practices for data sharing, data publishing, and involvement of scientific and citizen communities in data generation are the main topic of a recent report by the EU FP7 project Building the European Biodiversity Observation Network (EU BON), published in the innovative Research Ideas & Outcomes (RIO) journal.

The report “Data sharing tools for Biodiversity Observation Networks” provides conceptual and practical advice for implementation of the available data sharing and data publishing tools. A detailed description of tools, their pros and cons, is followed by recommendations on their deployment and enhancement to guide biodiversity data managers in their choices.

“We believe publishing this report in RIO makes a lot of sense given the journal’s innovative concept of publishing unconventional research outcomes such as project reports. This feature provides projects like EU BON with the chance to showcase their results effectively and timely. The report provides a useful practical guide for biodiversity data managers and RIO gives the project an opportunity to share findings with anyone who will make use of such information”, explains Prof. Lyubomir Penev, Managing Director of Pensoft and partner in EU BON.

The new report is the second EU BON contribution featured in a dedicated project outcomes collection in RIO. Together with the data policy recommendations it provides a comprehensive set of resources for the use of biodiversity data managers and users.

“We did our biodiversity data sharing tools comparison from the perspective of the needs of the biodiversity observation community with an eye on the development of a unified user interface to this data – the European Biodiversity Portal (EBP)”, add the authors.

The scientists have identified two main challenges standing in front of the biodiversity data community. On the one hand, there is a variety of tools but none can as stand alone, satisfy all the requirements of the wide variety of data providers. On the other hand, gaps in data coverage and quality demand more effort in data mobilization.

Envisaged information flows between EU BON and LTER Europe, showing the complexity of sharing biodiversity data (from the 3rd EU BON Stakeholder Roundtable, Granada on 9-11 December 2015).
Envisaged information flows between EU BON and LTER Europe, showing the complexity of sharing biodiversity data (from the 3rd EU BON Stakeholder Roundtable, Granada on 9-11 December 2015).

“For the time being a combination of tools combined in a new work-flow, makes the most sense for EU BON to mobilize biodiversity data,” comment the report authors on their findings. “There is more research to be done and tools to be developed, but for the future there is one firm conclusion and it is that the choice of tools should be defined by the needs of those observing biodiversity – the end user community in the broadest sense – from volunteer scientists to decision makers.”

###

Original Source:

Smirnova L, Mergen P, Groom Q, De Wever A, Penev L, Stoev P, Pe’er I, Runnel V, Camacho A, Vincent T, Agosti D, Arvanitidis C, Bonet F, Saarenmaa H (2016) Data sharing tools adopted by the European Biodiversity Observation Network Project. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9390. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9390

 

About EU BON:

EU BON stands for “Building the European Biodiversity Observation Network” and is a European research project, financed by the 7th EU framework programme for research and development (FP7). EU BON seeks ways to better integrate biodiversity information and implement into policy and decision-making of biodiversity monitoring and management in the EU.

 

 

Posted on

50th publication in RIO Journal: Report of the first FORCE11 Scholarly Commons workshop

What if scholars, librarians, archivists, publishers and funders could restart scholarly communication all over? This was the slogan of the first FORCE11 Scholarly Commons Working Group (SCWG) workshop, which took place in February. Advocating for an open, sustainable, fair and creditable future that is technology- and business-enabled, not -led, FORCE11’s SCWG committee published a Workshop Report in the open access journal Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO), becoming the anniversary 50th publication in the innovative research publishing platform.

The community of FORCE11, comprising scholars, librarians, archivists, publishers and research funders from around the globe, was born at the FORC Workshop held in Dagstuhl, Germany in August 2011. Ever since, the community have been working and striving together towards a change in modern scholarly communication through the effective use of information technology. Their aim has always been to facilitate the change to improved knowledge creation and sharing.

In 2016, the Scholarly Commons Working group within FORCE11 conducts two workshops in order to find the answers to the question how scholarly communication would have looked now, had it not been for the 350 years of traditional practices. They also focus on the implications of modern technology and modes of communications that could help bring the right change about.

“Too often, scholars are unaware of the origins of current practices and accept the status quo because ‘that’s how it’s done’,” the authors point out. “But what if we could start over? What if we had computers, Internet, search engines and social media, but no legacy of journals, articles, books, review systems etc.?”

The first workshop, held between 25th and 27th February in Madrid, Spain, was titled “What if we could start over?”. The second one is planned for later this year under the slogan “Putting the pieces together.”

During the three-day workshop, the fifty participants, representing experts, early career researchers and new voices from across disciplines and countries, engaged in various activities. In order to”diverge and then converge”, the participants were encouraged through a number of enjoyable tasks to freely think outside the box, assuming that the current system of scholarly communication, based on a paper-based reward system, never existed.116566

“Given today’s technology and the amount of money currently in the system, how would you design a system of scholarly communications (“The Scholarly Commons”), the goal of which is to maximize the accessibility and impact of scholarly works,” they were asked. “By putting us in an alternate reality with a clear charge, we sidestepped issues that often engulf such discussions: why do we publish and who do we publish for.”

At the end of the workshop, the group’s principles were ordered under five subheadings, namely:

  • Open and sustainable
  • Fair
  • Credit for all endeavors
  • Technology- and business-enabled, not -led
  • Governance and funding

The attendees’ ideas, visions and suggested principles were also captured in a live and interactive visualization, consisting of the participants’ virtual post-it notes, also available through Trello.

In the spirit of the workshop itself, the report is now formally published in the form of a new scholarly communication artifact. Workshop Report is only one of the various innovative research publication types, provided by the open access journal Research Ideas and Outcomes(RIO), whose aim is to acknowledge and disseminate all quality and valuable research outputs from across all stages of the research cycle.

###

Original source:

Kramer B, Bosman J, Ignac M, Kral C, Kalleinen T, Koskinen P, Bruno I, Buckland A, Callaghan S, Champieux R, Chapman C, Hagstrom S, Martone M, Murphy F, O’Donnell D (2016) Defining the Scholarly Commons – Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9340. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9340

Posted on

RIO celebrates its 50th publication

We are pleased to announce that RIO published its 50th article!

The milestone paper “Defining the Scholarly Commons – Reimagining Research Communication. Report of Force11 SCWG Workshop, Madrid, Spain, February 25-27, 2016” is a Workshop Report by Bianca Kramer et al., one among many showcasing RIO’s innovative publication types in use. To date, the journal has published outputs in various innovative categories (see chart), including Research Ideas, Workshop Reports, Data Management Plans, Research Posters, Conference Abstracts and PhD Project plans. We are especially proud to host Grant Proposals from a wide variety of funding initiatives worldwide.

See a more detailed breakdown of RIO’s publications in the pie chart above.

Posted on

Open Science environment Unicorn allows researchers and decision makers to work together

Given that the most important societal needs require multidiscipli­nary collaboration between researchers and decision makers, a suitable environment has to be provided in the first place. A proposal, prepared by a Finnish consortium and published in the open access journal Research Ideas and Outcomes, suggests a new, open virtual work and modeling platform to support evidence-based decision making in a number of areas, while also abiding by the principles of openness, criticism and reuse.

The Finnish consortium, led by Prof. Pekka Neittaanmäki, University of Jyväskylä, and bringing together Timo Huttula and Janne Ropponen, Finnish Environment Institute, Juha Karvanen and Tero Tuovinen, University of Jyväskylä, Tom Frisk, Pirkanmaa Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, Jouni Tuomisto, National Institute for Health and Welfare, and Antti Simola, VATT Institute for Economic Research, acknowledge that, “it is not enough that experts push data to politicians.”

“There must be practices for mutual communication: experts must answer policy questions in a defendable and useful way; decision makers must more clearly explain their views using evidence; and there must be ICT tools to support this exchange,” the authors explain. “The focus is on end-users.”

Unicorn is to combine shared practices, tools, data, working environments and concerted actions in order to aggregate open information from multiple databases, and create tools for efficient policy studies.

The consor­­tium have already developed and tested prototypes of such practices and tools in several projects, and insist that they are now ready to apply their experience and knowledge on a larger scale. They are also certain that open data and models are deservedly the “mega trend” nowadays.

“Unicorn directs this trend to paths that are the most beneficial for societal decision making by providing quick, reliable and efficient decision support,” they say.

“Significant saving of resources will be mani­fested with improved data collection, analyses and modeling. Also, the quality and amount of assessments that can be done to support work.”

“The major challenges related to evidence-based decision making actually are about changing the practices of researchers and dec­­ision makers,” according to the authors. Therefore, they see their project as a demonstration of the needed shifts.

Although the approach is applicable in all areas, the researchers are to initially implement them in environment, human health, and regional economy, “as they are com­plex and chal­lenging enough to offer a good test bed for general development.”

Having already been submitted to the Strategic Funds of Academy of Finland in 2015, the Unicorn environment proposal has been rejected due to overambitiousness and low commercial potential. However, the authors are confident that the Unicorn environment along with its growing community of developers can, in fact, meet a great success. They are currently looking for further funding suggestions and forming new consortiums.

###

Original source:

Neittaanmäki P, Huttula T, Karvanen J, Frisk T, Tuomisto J, Simola A, Tuovinen T, Ropponen J (2016) Unicorn-Open science for assessing environmental state, human health and regional economy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9232. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9232

Posted on

Open neuroscience: Collaborative Neuroimaging Lab finalist for the Open Science Prize

Despite the abundance of digital neuroimaging data, shared thanks to all funding, data collection, and processing efforts, but also the goodwill of thousands of participants, its analysis is still falling behind. As a result, the insight into both mental disorders and cognition is compromised.

The Open Neuroimaging Laboratory framework, promises a collaborative and transparent platform to optimise both the quantity and quality of this invaluable brain data, ultimately gaining a greater insight into both mental disorders and cognition.

The project was submitted for the Open Science Prize competition by Katja Heuer, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Germany, Dr Satrajit S. Ghosh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA, Amy Robinson Sterling, EyeWire, USA, and Dr Roberto Toro, Institut Pasteur, France. Amongst 96 submissions from all around the globe, it was chosen as one of six teams to compete in the second and final phase of the Prize.

Simply having access and being able to download brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data is not enough to reap all potential benefits. In order for it to be turned into insight and knowledge, it needs to also be queried, pre-processed and analysed, which requires a substantial amount of human curation, visual quality assessment and manual editing. With research being rather patchy, a lot of efforts are currently redundant and unreliable.

On the other hand, the Open Neuroimaging Laboratory aims to aggregate annotated brain imaging data from across various resources, thus improving its searchability and potential for reuse. It is to also develop a tool that will facilitate and encourage the creation of distributed teams of researchers to collaborate together in the analysis of this open data in real time.

“Our project will help transform the massive amount of static brain MRI data readily available online into living matter for collaborative analysis,” explain the researchers.

“We will allow a larger number of researchers to have access to this data by lowering the barriers that prevent their analysis: no data will have to be downloaded or stored, no software will have to be installed, and it will be possible to recruit a large, distributed, group of collaborators online.”

“By working together in a distributed and collaborative way, sharing our work and our analyses, we should improve transparency, statistical power and reproducibility,” they elaborate. “Our aim is to provide to everyone the means to share effort, learn from each other, and improve quality of and trust in scientific output.”Untitled

Having already developed a functional prototype of the BrainBox web application, which provides an interactive online space for collaborative data analyses and discussions, the team will now turn it into a first version with an improved user experience, stability and documentation. Planned for the Open Science Prize Phase 2 are furthering the type of analyses and exploring the development of interfaces for database-wise statistical analyses.

In the spirit of the competition, the scientists have decided to release their code open source on GitHub to facilitate bug fixes, extension and maintainability.

###

Original source:

Heuer K, Ghosh S, Robinson Sterling A, Toro R (2016) Open Neuroimaging Laboratory.Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9113. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9113

Posted on

Influence of religion and predestination on evolution and scientific thinking

Generally seen as antithetical to one another, evolution and religion can hardly fit in a scientific discourse simultaneously. However, biologist Dr Aldemaro Romero Jr., Baruch College, USA, devotes his latest research article, now published in the open access Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO), to observing the influences a few major religions have had on evolutionists and their scientific thinking over the centuries.

Inspired by the lack of pigmentation and/or eyes in some cave organisms, he focuses on biospeleology to challenge the notions of predetermination and linearity. Although the author makes it clear that fellow scientists do not claim their findings based on religion, he notes that “words matter and that words can hide a lot of the philosophical baggage that sooner or later may influence their ultimate conclusion”.

Using examples from across the centuries, Dr Aldemaro Romero Jr. goes back to the times long before Charles Darwin had started compiling his prominent “The Origin of Species” and then turns once again to his evolutionist successors. Thus, he explores the link between the notion of predestination, underlying in various religions and nations, and the evolutionary theories.

The author notices that despite conclusions that evolution is not a linear process, biologists have never stopped seeing and contemplating “preadaptations” and “regressive evolution”, when speculating on phenomena such as the lack of eyes in some exclusively cave-dwelling animals. Such choice of words can be easily traced back to assumptions of linearity and, therefore, predestination, common for various religions.

FALCON STATE, VENEZUELA - Aldemaro Romero Jr., Executive Director, BIOMA, during cave exploration in Paraguana in 1988.
FALCON STATE, VENEZUELA – Aldemaro Romero Jr., Executive Director, BIOMA, during cave exploration in Paraguana in 1988.

“Since the advent of Modern Synthesis we have a pretty consistent set of evidence that evolution is not linear, that there is not such a thing as direction for evolutionary processes, and that nothing is predetermined since natural selection, the main evolutionary mechanism, is a process that is not moved by any mystical force, nor directs beings toward a particular end,” points out Dr Aldemaro Romero Jr..

“Therefore, I hope this paper serves as a warning to scientists that no matter what reductionist view they have in the way they practice their research, if they do not understand the historical roots and the philosophical framework of their research, they are doomed at presenting only a very partial (and many times biased) view of nature,” he concludes.

###

Original source:

Romero Jr. A (2016) The influence of religion on science: the case of the idea of predestination in biospeleology. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9015. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9015

Posted on

New development tool based on ‘software quality information needs’ and 3 case studies

While constantly developing, software takes over more and more aspects of our life at both individual and community level. Thus, software failures and security are easily becoming major concerns which need to be addressed on the spur of the moment.

A way to do so, according to computer scientist Dr Daniel Graziotin, University of Stuttgart, is adopting a new concept, which he terms ‘Software quality information needs’, along with multi-angled extensive empirical evidence to produce a development tool to improve software quality. His Grant Proposal is published in the open access journal Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO).

The proposed research is in the context of an earlier DFG Grant Proposal, authored by Prof. Dr. Stefan Wagner, University of Stuttgart, and published in the same journal. The earlier project idea suggests novel tools analysing software changes before and during their implementation. Similarly to Dr Daniel Graziotin’s idea, it is based on fast and focused feedback loop.

The presently proposed research, planned to take 24 months, is set to start with establishing the ‘software quality information needs’ construct. The author coins this theory in order to conceptualise and provide deeper understanding of the information essential for a developer when performing code changes or designing new parts of a system.

The project is to then go on to produce metrics to detect and satisfy a developer’s needs. As a result, optimally unobtrusive measurement techniques are to be developed and evaluated in three empirical studies.

About 120 software engineering students from the University of Stuttgart are to be recruited to provide empirical evidence. While they are working on either real-world or university software projects, they are to be observed, regularly interviewed and asked to think aloud. Their insights will be further enriched through a post-task interview. The findings are to answer the question “How can we conceptualise information needs when dealing with software quality?”.

“What information is needed when dealing with software quality?”, is to be covered by the second empirical study, which plans to involve the software engineers of Daimler, Porsche, and Bosch, since the automotive industry is particularly concerned with software quality issues. The engineers are to fill in mostly open-ended surveys and thus, provide a broad view of software quality information needs and their priority from a practitioner’s perspective.

Building on the above case studies, the German multinational engineering and electronics company Robert Bosch GmbH is to be approached for validated questionnaires and behavior patterns tests, such as keystroke frequency and typos detection. Ultimately, the findings are to answer how software quality information needs to be detected unobtrusively through behavioral patterns.

To exemplify the tool, based on the described research and its expected findings, the scientist uses fictional software developer, called Anne. While working on a system routine to be applied in a banking application, she is notified by the integrated development environment (IDE), that there might be some quality issues.

It turns out that she is employing a design pattern that is not frequently employed in similar cases, so the IDE suggests that she browses some StackOverflow.com related questions and answers regarding the design pattern. Because she has also created part of the procedure by cloning code from another part of the project, the tool offers her to help to refactor the cloned code.

“Providing a software developer with the right kind of information about the current state of and the effect of changes on software quality can prevent catastrophic software failures and avoid opening up security holes,” Dr Daniel Graziotin argues.

###

Original source:

Graziotin D (2016) Software quality information needs. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8865.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8865