Best Practices for Scientific Computing

PLoS Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Wilson, Greg ^a   Aruliah, D A ^b   Brown, C Titus ^c   Chue Hong, Neil P ^d   Davis, Matt ^e   Guy, Richard T ^f,n   Haddock, Steven H D ^g   Huff, Kathryn D ^h   Mitchell, Ian M ⁱ   Plumbley, Mark D ^j   Waugh, Ben ^k   White, Ethan P ^l   Wilson, Paul ^m  

^a Mozilla Science Lab   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Canada)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Software Sustainability Institute   (United Kingdom)

^e STScI   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^g MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^j QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^l UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

ⁿ MICROSOFT   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CAPITAL; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA BASE; INTERNET; INVESTMENT; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOMENCLATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENTIST; WORKFLOW; WORKING MEMORY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTING METHODOLOGIES; HUMANS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84893773697     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001745     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Hannay JE, Langtangen HP, MacLeod C, Pfahl D, Singer J, et al. (2009) How do scientists develop and use scientific software? In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering. pp. 1-8. doi:10.1109/SECSE.2009.5069155.
2. Prabhu P, Jablin TB, Raman A, Zhang Y, Huang J, et al. (2011) A survey of the practice of computational science. In: Proceedings 24th ACM/IEEE Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. pp. 19:1-19:12. doi:10.1145/2063348.2063374.
3. Vardi M, (2010) Science has only two legs. Communications of the ACM 53: 5.
4. Hatton L, Roberts A, (1994) How accurate is scientific software? IEEE T Software Eng 20: 785-797.
5. Hatton L, (1997) The T experiments: errors in scientific software. Computational Science & Engineering 4: 27-38.
6. Merali Z, (2010) Error: why scientific programming does not compute. Nature 467: 775-777.
7. Chang G, Roth CB, Reyes CL, Pornillos O, Chen YJ, et al. (2006) Retraction. Science 314: 1875.
8. Ferrari F, Jung YL, Kharchenko PV, Plachetka A, Alekseyenko AA, et al. (2013) Comment on "Drosophila dosage compensation involves enhanced Pol II recruitment to male X-Linked promoters". Science 340: 273.
9. Ma C, Chang G, (2007) Retraction for Ma and Chang, structure of the multidrug resistance efflux transporter EmrE from Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 3668.
10. Chang G, (2007) Retraction of 'Structure of MsbA from Vibrio cholera: A Multidrug Resistance ABC Transporter Homolog in a Closed Conformation' [J. Mol. Biol. (2003) 330 419430]. Journal of Molecular Biology 369: 596.
11. Lees DC, Colwell RK, (2007) A strong Madagascan rainforest MDE and no equatorward increase in species richness: re-analysis of 'The Missing Madagascan Mid-Domain Effect', by Kerr JT, Perring M, Currie DJ (Ecol Lett 9:149159, 2006). Ecol Lett 10: E4-E8.
12. Currie D, Kerr J, (2007) Testing, as opposed to supporting, the mid-domain hypothesis: a response to lees and colwell. Ecol Lett 10: E9-E10.
13. Kelt DA, Wilson JA, Konno ES, Braswell JD, Deutschman D, (2008) Differential responses of two species of kangaroo rat (Dipodomys) to heavy rains: a humbling reappraisal. J Mammal 89: 252-254.
14. Anon (2013) Retraction notice to "Plasma PCSK9 levels and clinical outcomes in the TNT (Treating to New Targets) Trial" [J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:17781784]. J Am Coll Cardiol 61: 1751.
15. Hypertension 60: e29. Retraction. Implications of new hypertension guidelines in the United States. Retraction of Bertoia ML, Waring ME, Gupta PS, Roberts MB, Eaton CB. Hypertension (2011) 58: 361-366.
16. Herndon T, Ash M, Pollin R (2013). Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Working paper, Political Economy Research Institute. Available: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working papers/working papers 301-350/WP322.pdf.
17. Aranda J (2012). Software carpentry assessment report. Available: http://software-carpentry.org/papers/arandaassessment-2012-07.pdf.
18. Wilson G, (2006) Software carpentry: getting scientists to write better code by making them more productive. Comput Sci Eng pp. 66-69.
19. Heroux MA, Willenbring JM (2009) Barely-sufficient software engineering: 10 practices to improve your CSE software. In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering. pp. 15-21. 10.1109/SECSE.2009.5069157.
20. Kane D (2003) Introducing agile development into bioinformatics: an experience report. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Agile Development, IEEE Computer Society, Washington (D.C.); 2003, 0-7695-2013-8, pp. 132-139, 10.1109/ADC.2003.1231463.
21. Kane D, Hohman M, Cerami E, McCormick M, Kuhlmman K, et al. (2006) Agile methods in biomedical software development: a multi-site experience report. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 273.
22. Killcoyne S, Boyle J, (2009) Managing chaos: lessons learned developing software in the life sciences. Comput Sci Eng 11: 20-29.
23. Matthews D, Wilson G, Easterbrook S, (2008) Configuration management for large-scale scientific computing at the UK Met office. Comput Sci Eng pp. 56-64.
24. Pitt-Francis J, Bernabeu MO, Cooper J, Garny A, Momtahan L, et al. (2008) Chaste: using agile programming techniques to develop computational biology software. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 366: 3111-3136.
25. Pouillon Y, Beuken JM, Deutsch T, Torrent M, Gonze X, (2011) Organizing software growth and distributed development: the case of abinit. Comput Sci Eng 13: 62-69.
26. Spolsky J (2000). The Joel test: 12 steps to better code. Available: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html. Accessed September 2013.
27. Fogel K (2005) Producing open source software: how to run a successful free software project. Sepastopol (California): O'Reilly. Available: http://producingoss.com.
28. Carver JC, Kendall RP, Squires SE, Post DE (2007) Software development environments for scientific and engineering software: a series of case studies. In: Proceedings 29th International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 550-559. 10.1109/ICSE.2007.77.
29. Kelly D, Hook D, Sanders R, (2009) Five recommended practices for computational scientists who write software. Comput Sci Eng 11: 48-53.
30. Segal J, (2005) When software engineers met research scientists: a case study. Empir Softw Eng 10: 517-536.
31. Segal J (2008) Models of scientific software development. In: Proceedings First International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering. Available: http://secse08.cs.ua.edu/Papers/Segal.pdf.
32. Oram A, Wilson G, editors(2010) Making software: what really works, and why we believe it. Sepastopol (California): O'Reilly.
33. Baddeley A, Eysenck MW, Anderson MC (2009) Memory. New York: Psychology Press.
34. Hock RR (2008) Forty studies that changed psychology: explorations into the history of psychological research, 6th edition. Upper Saddle River (New Jersey): Prentice Hall.
35. Letovsky S (1986) Cognitive processes in program comprehension. In: Proceedings First Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers. pp. 58-79. 10.1016/0164-1212(87)90032-X.
36. Binkley D, Davis M, Lawrie D, Morrell C (2009) To CamelCase or under_score. In: Proceedings 2009 IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension. pp. 158-167. 10.1109/ICPC.2009.5090039.
37. Robinson E (2005) Why crunch mode doesn't work: six lessons. Available: http://www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons. Accessed: September 2013.
38. Ray DS, Ray EJ (2009) Unix and Linux: visual quickstart guide. 4th edition. San Francisco: Peachpit Press.
39. Haddock S, Dunn C (2010) Practical computing for biologists. Sunderland (Massachusetts): Sinauer Associates.
40. Dubois PF, Epperly T, Kumfert G, (2003) Why Johnny can't build (portable scientific software). Comput Sci Eng 5: 83-88.
41. Smith P (2011) Software build systems: principles and experience. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
42. Fomel S, Hennenfent G (2007) Reproducible computational experiments using SCons. In: Proceedings 32nd International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. volume IV, pp. 1257-1260. 10.1109/ICASSP.2007.367305.
43. Moreau L, Freire J, Futrelle J, McGrath RE, Myers J, et al. (2007) The open provenance model (v1.00). Technical report, University of Southampton. Accessed September 2013.
44. Segal J, Morris C, (2008) Developing scientific software. IEEE Software 25: 18-20.
45. Martin RC (2002) Agile software development, principles, patterns, and practices. Upper Saddle River (New Jersey): Prentice Hall.
46. Kniberg H (2007) Scrum and XP from the trenches. C4Media, 978-1-4303-2264-1, Available from http://www.infoq.com/minibooks/scrum-xp-from-the-trenches.
47. McConnell S (2004) Code complete: a practical handbook of software construction, 2nd edition. Seattle: Microsoft Press.
48. Noble WS, (2009) A quick guide to organizing computational biology projects. PLoS Comput Biol 5: e1000424 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000424.
49. Hunt A, Thomas D (1999) The pragmatic programmer: from journeyman to master. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
50. Juergens E, Deissenboeck F, Hummel B, Wagner S (2009) Do code clones matter? In: Proceedings 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 485-495. 10.1109/ICSE.2009.5070547.
51. Grubb P, Takang AA (2003) Software maintenance: concepts and practice, 2nd edition. Singapore: World Scientific.
52. Dubois PF, (2005) Maintaining correctness in scientific programs. Comput Sci Eng 7: 80-85.
53. Sanders R, Kelly D, (2008) Dealing with risk in scientific software development. IEEE Software 25: 21-28.
54. List of unit testing frameworks. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of unit testing frameworks. Accessed September 2013.
55. Meszaros G (2007) xUnit test patterns: refactoring test code. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
56. Osherove R (2009) The art of unit testing: with examples in.NET. Greenwich (Connecticut): Manning.
57. Hook D, Kelly D (2009) Testing for trustworthiness in scientific software. In: Proceedings Second International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering. pp. 59-64. 10.1109/SECSE.2009.5069163.
58. Kelly D, Sanders R (2008) Assessing the quality of scientific software. In: Proceedings First International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering. Available: http://secse08.cs.ua.edu/Papers/Kelly.pdf.
59. Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Zeller A (2009) Why programs fail: a guide to systematic debugging. Burlington (Massachusetts): Morgan Kaufmann.
61. Jones MB, Regehr J (1999) The problems you're having may not be the problems you think you're having: results from a latency study of Windows NT. In: Proceedings 7th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems. pp. 96-101. 10.1109/RTTAS.1999.777681.
62. Prechelt L (2010) Two comparisons of programming languages. Oram A, Wilson G, editors. Making software: what really works, and why we believe it. Sepastopol (California): O'Reilly. pp. 239-258.
63. Xie Y (2013). knitr: A general-purpose tool for dynamic report generation in r. R package version 0.9. Available: http://yihui.name/knitr/.
64. Pérez F, Granger BE, (2007) IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Comput Sci Eng 9: 21-29.
65. Fagan ME, (1976) Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Syst J 15: 182-211.
66. Cohen J (2010) Modern code review. Oram A, Wilson G, editors. Making software: what really works, and why we believe it. Sepastopol (California): O'Reilly. pp. 329-336.
67. Williams L (2010) Pair programming. Oram A, Wilson G, editors. Making software: what really works, and why we believe it. Sepastopol (California): O'Reilly. pp. 311-322.
68. Dubois P, Johnson J, (2003) Issue tracking. Comput Sci Eng 5: 71-77.
69. Wilson G (2013). Software carpentry: lessons learned. arXiv:1307.5448. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5448.