| Title |
Good enough practices in scientific computing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Greg Wilson, Jennifer Bryan, Karen Cranston, Justin Kitzes, Lex Nederbragt, Tracy K. Teal |
| Abstract |
Computers are now essential in all branches of science, but most researchers are never taught the equivalent of basic lab skills for research computing. As a result, data can get lost, analyses can take much longer than necessary, and researchers are limited in how effectively they can work with software and data. Computing workflows need to follow the same practices as lab projects and notebooks, with organized data, documented steps, and the project structured for reproducibility, but researchers new to computing often don't know where to start. This paper presents a set of good computing practices that every researcher can adopt, regardless of their current level of computational skill. These practices, which encompass data management, programming, collaborating with colleagues, organizing projects, tracking work, and writing manuscripts, are drawn from a wide variety of published sources from our daily lives and from our work with volunteer organizations that have delivered workshops to over 11,000 people since 2010. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,068 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 246 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 88 | 8% |
| Canada | 48 | 4% |
| Australia | 39 | 4% |
| France | 33 | 3% |
| Germany | 29 | 3% |
| Japan | 18 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 18 | 2% |
| Spain | 18 | 2% |
| Other | 164 | 15% |
| Unknown | 367 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 585 | 55% |
| Scientists | 430 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 31 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 22 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 29 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | <1% |
| Germany | 6 | <1% |
| France | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Sweden | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 13 | <1% |
| Unknown | 2100 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 597 | 27% |
| Researcher | 467 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 261 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 167 | 8% |
| Other | 112 | 5% |
| Other | 323 | 15% |
| Unknown | 249 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 407 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 181 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 174 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 162 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 150 | 7% |
| Other | 751 | 35% |
| Unknown | 351 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 780. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2024.
All research outputs
#25,005
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#19
of 9,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#456
of 330,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#1
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.