Literature Related to Research Software Engineering in DH

  • Connolly, A. et al. (2023). Software Engineering Practices in Academia: Promoting the 3Rs—Readability, Resilience, and Reuse. Harvard Data Science Review, 5 (2), https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.018bf012
  • Koeser, R. et al. (2025/01). Undate: humanistic dates for computation: Because reality is frequently inaccurate. Computational Humanities Research, 1 e5. https://doi.org/10.1017/chr.2025.10006
  • Thakur, A. et al. (2025). Scientific Open-Source Software Is Less Likely to Become Abandoned Than One Might Think! Lessons from Curating a Catalog of Maintained Scientific Software. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering, 2 (FSE), 2216-2239. https://doi.org/10.1145/3729369

    • Code Review

  • Bhandari Neupane, J. et al. (2019). Characterization of Leptazolines A–D, Polar Oxazolines from the Cyanobacterium Leptolyngbya sp., Reveals a Glitch with the “Willoughby–Hoye” Scripts for Calculating NMR Chemical Shifts. Organic Letters, 21 (20), 8449-8453. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.9b03216
  • Cleary, B. et al. (11/2012). Contemporary Peer Review in Action: Lessons from Open Source Development. IEEE Software, 29 (6), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.24
  • Damerow, J. et al. (2024). Code review in digital humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 40 (Supplement_1), i18-i26. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae052
  • Eisty, N., Carver, J. (01/2022). Developers perception of peer code review in research software development. Empirical Software Engineering, 27 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10053-x
  • Fagan, M. (1976). Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal, 15 (3), 182-211.
  • Koeser, R. (2015). Trusting Others to ‘Do the Math’. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 40 (4), 376-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2016.1165454
  • Nangia, U., Katz, D. (2017). Track 1 Paper: Surveying the U.S. National Postdoctoral Association Regarding Software Use and Training in Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.814220
  • Petre, M., Wilson, G. (2014). Code Review For and By Scientists. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.5648
  • Petre, M., Wilson, G. (2013). PLOS/Mozilla Scientific Code Review Pilot: Summary of Findings. Arxiv, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1311.2412
  • Rigby, P., Bird, C. (2013). Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. 202-212. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491411.2491444
  • Thongtanunam, P. et al. (4/2017). Review participation in modern code review: An empirical study of the android, Qt, and OpenStack projects. Empirical Software Engineering, 22 (2), 768-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9452-6