Here are a few slides from presentations mentioned in a previous blog post; slides from more of the talks at EWASS will be covered in another post.
Posters! Sessions! Meetings! The upcoming AAS meeting in Kissimmee, Florida is shaping up to be the busiest ever! Here are the formal meeting activities the ASCL is participating in.
Special Session: Tools and Tips for Better Software (aka Pain Reduction for Code Authors)
Tuesday, January 05, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM; Sanibel
Organizers: Astrophysics Source Code Library (ASCL)/Moore-Sloan Data Science Environment at NYU
Research in astronomy is increasingly dependent on software methods and astronomers are increasingly called upon to write, collaborate on, release, and archive research quality software, but how can these be more easily accomplished? Building on comments and questions from previous AAS special sessions, this session, organized by the Astrophysics Source Code Library (ASCL) and the Moore-Sloan Data Science Environment at NYU, explores methods for improving software by using available tools and best practices to ease the burden and increase the reward of doing so. With version control software such as git and svn and companion online sites such as GitHub and Bitbucket, documentation generators such as Doxygen and Sphinx, and Travis CI, Intern, and Jenkins available to aid in testing software, it is now far easier to write, document and test code. Presentations cover best practices, tools, and tips for managing the life cycle of software, testing software and creating documentation, managing releases, and easing software production and sharing. After the presentations, the floor will be open for discussion and questions.
The topics and panelists are:
Source code management with version control software, Kenza S. Arraki
Software testing, Adrian M. Price-Whelan
The importance of documenting code, and how you might make yourself do it, Erik J. Tollerud
Best practices for code release, G. Bruce Berriman
Community building and its impact on sustainable scientific software, Matthew Turk
What to do with a dead research code, Robert J. Nemiroff
Poster 247.07: Astronomy education and the Astrophysics Source Code Library
Wednesday, January 06, Exhibit Hall A
The Astrophysics Source Code Library (ASCL) is an online registry of source codes used in refereed astrophysics research. It currently lists nearly 1,200 codes and covers all aspects of computational astrophysics. How can this resource be of use to educators and to the graduate students they mentor? The ASCL serves as a discovery tool for codes that can be used for one’s own research. Graduate students can also investigate existing codes to see how common astronomical problems are approached numerically in practice, and use these codes as benchmarks for their own solutions to these problems. Further, they can deepen their knowledge of software practices and techniques through examination of others’ codes.
Poster 348.01: Making your code citable with the Astrophysics Source Code Library
Thursday, January 07, Exhibit Hall A
The Astrophysics Source Code Library (ASCL, ascl.net) is a free online registry of codes used in astronomy research. With nearly 1,200 codes, it is the largest indexed resource for astronomy codes in existence. Established in 1999, it offers software authors a path to citation of their research codes even without publication of a paper describing the software, and offers scientists a way to find codes used in refereed publications, thus improving the transparency of the research. Citations using ASCL IDs are accepted by major astronomy journals and if formatted properly are tracked by ADS and other indexing services. The number of citations to ASCL entries increased sharply from 110 citations in January 2014 to 456 citations in September 2015. The percentage of code entries in ASCL that were cited at least once rose from 7.5% in January 2014 to 17.4% in September 2015. The ASCL’s mid-2014 infrastructure upgrade added an easy entry submission form, more flexible browsing, search capabilities, and an RSS feeder for updates. A Changes/Additions form added this past fall lets authors submit links for papers that use their codes for addition to the ASCL entry even if those papers don’t formally cite the codes, thus increasing the transparency of that research and capturing the value of their software to the community.
Already it’s shaping up to be a software maven’s dream AAS meeting, with workshops and Special Sessions focused on expanding your software skills and a Hack Day to put them to use! We’ll have a comprehensive listing closer to the meeting date, but here are the activities already on the schedule, with more to come!
Introduction to Software Carpentry 2 Day Workshop
Astrostatistics and R
Using Python for Astronomical Data Analysis
SciCoder Presents: Developing Larger Software Projects
Bayesian Methods in Astronomy: Hands-on Statistics
Tools and Tips for Better Software (aka Pain Reduction for Code Authors)
Lectures in AstroStatistics
Google has announced the closure of its Google Code service. Google suggests several courses of action and states, “We … offer stand-alone tools for migrating to GitHub and Bitbucket, and SourceForge offers a Google Code project importer service.”
Please take steps to save your software! If you migrate your code to another site, I would appreciate knowing the new URL. If you are no longer working on your software and do not want to migrate it to another project hosting site, please allow the ASCL to store an archive file (tarball/zip/etc.) of it with the ASCL entry so it remains available to support your written research record, or select another option to preserve your code. If you would like to have the ASCL host an archive file, please contact me; thank you.
On Tuesday, January 6, the ASCL, AAS Working Group on Astronomical Software (WGAS), and the Moore-Sloan Data Science Environment at NYU sponsored a special session on software licenses, with support from the AAS. This subject was suggested as a topic of interest in the Astrophysics Code Sharing II: The Sequel session at AAS 223.
Frossie Economou from the LSST and chair of the WGAS opened the session with a few words of welcome and stressed the importance of licensing. I gave a 90-second overview of the ASCL before turning the podium over to Alberto Accomazzi from NASA/Astronomy Data System (ADS), who introduced the panel of speakers and later moderated the open discussion (opening slides), after which Frossie again took the podium for some closing remarks. The panel of six speakers discussed different licenses and shared considerations that arise when choosing a license; they also covered institutional concerns about intellectual property, governmental restrictions on exporting codes, concerns about software beyond licensing, and information on how much software is licensed and characteristics of that software. The floor was then opened for discussion and questions.
Some of the main points from each presentation are summarized below, with links to the slides used by the presenters.
- Copy-left and Copy-right, Jacob VanderPlas (eScience institute, University of Washington)
Jake extolled everyone to always license codes, as in the US, copyright law defaults to “all privileges retained” unless otherwise specified. He pointed out that “free software” can refer to the freedoms that are available to users of the software. He covered the major differences between BSD/MIT-style “permissive” licensing and GPL “sticky” licensing while acknowledging that the difference between them can be a contentious issue.
- University tech transfer perspective on software licensing, Laura L. Dorsey (Center for Commercialization, University of Washington)
Universities care about software licenses for a variety of reasons, Laura stated, which can include limiting the university’s risk, respecting IP rights, complying with funding obligations, and retaining academic and research use rights. She also covered factors software authors may care about, among them receiving attribution, controlling the software, and making money. She reinforced the importance of licensing code and discussed the common components of a software license.
- Relicensing the Montage Image Mosaic Engine, G. Bruce Berriman (Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, Caltech)
In last year’s Astrophysics Code Sharing session, Bruce had discussed the limitations of the Caltech license under which the code Montage was licensed; since then, Montage has been relicensed to a BSD 3-Clause License. Following on the heels of Laura’s discussion and serving as a case study for institutional concerns regarding software, Bruce related the reasons for and concerns about the relicensing, and discussed working with the appropriate office at Caltech to bring about this change.
- Export Controls on Astrophysical Simulation Codes, Daniel Whalen (Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Heidelberg)
Dan’s presentation covered some of the government issues that arise from research codes, including why certain codes fall under export controls; a primary reason is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.Dan also brought up how foreign intelligence agencies collect information and what specific simulations are restricted, and stated that Federal rules are changing, but slowly.
- Why licensing is just the first step, Arfon M. Smith (GitHub Inc.)
Arfon went beyond licensing in his presentation to discuss open source and open collaborations, and how GitHub delivers on a “theoretical promise of open source.” He shared statistics on the growth of collaborative coding using GitHub, and demonstrated how a collaborative coding process can work and pointed out that through this exposed process, community knowledge is increased and shared. He challenged the audience to contemplate the many reasons for releasing a project and to ask themselves what kind of project they want to create.
- Licenses in the wild, Daniel Foreman-Mackey (New York University)
First, I have to note that Dan made it through 41 slides in just over the six minutes allotted for his talk, covering about seven slides/minute; I don’t know whether to be more impressed with his presentation skills or the audience’s information-intake abilities!
After declaring that he knows nothing about licensing, Dan showed us, and how, that he knows plenty about mining data and extracting information from it. From his “random” selection of 1.6 million GitHub repositories, he noted with some glee that 63 languages are more popular on GitHub than IDL is, the number of repositories with licenses have increased since 2012 to 17%, and that only 28,972 of the 1.6 million mentioned the license in the README file. Dan also determined the popularity of various licenses overall and by language and shared that information as well.
After Dan’s presentation, Alberto Accomazzi opened the floor for discussion. Takeaway points included:
- Discuss licensing with your institution; it’s likely there is an office/personnel devoted to deal with these issues
- This office is likely very familiar with issues you bring to it, including who to refer you to when the issues are outside their purview
- “Friends don’t let friends write their own licenses.” IOW, select an existing license rather than writing your own
- License your code
- Let others know how you want your code cited/acknowledged
My thanks to David W. Hogg, Kelle Cruz, Matt Turk, and Peter Teuben for work — which started last March! — on developing the session, to Alberto for his excellent moderating and to Frossie for opening and closing it. My thanks also to the wonderful Jake, Laura, Bruce, Dan W, Arfon, and Dan F-M for presenting at this session, and to the Moore-Sloan Data Science Environment at NYU and AAS for their sponsorship.
Many resources on licensing, including excellent posts by Jake and Bruce, can be found here.
Below, a list of informative, interesting (or both!) writings about software licensing; the ASCL doesn’t necessarily agree with all positions in these articles, but we want to know what people are thinking even when we don’t agree with them.
A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer
By Andrew Morin, Jennifer Urban, Piotr Sliz
Relicensing yt from GPLv3 to BSD
By Matthew Turk
Best Practices for Scientific Computing
Greg Wilson, D. A. Aruliah, C. Titus Brown, Neil P. Chue Hong, Matt Davis, Richard T. Guy, Steven H. D. Haddock, Katy Huff, Ian M. Mitchell, Mark Plumbley, Ben Waugh, Ethan P. White, Paul Wilson
The Whys and Hows of Licensing Scientific Code
By Jake VanderPlas
Licensing your code
ASCL blog post http://ascl.net/wordpress/?p=726 lists the following:
Making Sense of Software Licensing
Choose a license
Open Source Initiative also offers information on licenses
White paper from the Software Freedom Law Center
Bruce Berriman’s post on relicensing Montage
The Gentle Art of Muddying the Licensing Waters
by Glyn Moody
STM open license suggestions and aftermath
Open Access Licensing
Don’t Muddy the “Open” Waters: SPARC Joins Call for STM Association to Rethink New Licenses
Global Coalition of Access to Research, Science and Education Organizations calls on STM to Withdraw New Model Licenses
STM response to ‘Global Coalition of Access to Research, Science and Education Organisations calls on STM to Withdraw New Model Licenses’
New “open” licenses aren’t so open
Interesting talk on ITAR
Discusses dual-use technologies, which is what codes are under ITAR. These are governed by the Wassenaar Arrangement. The countries that participate meet 3x/year to decide what restrictions to put on dual-use technologies. Dr. James Harrington was the speaker. Slides available on that page.
This is an update on figures I’ve previously shared (most recently here). Currently, the ASCL indexes 977 codes. The percentage of these codes housed on social coding sites are:
This gives us 16.4% of codes listed on the ASCL housed on a public social coding site, an increase since February of 5.4%, most of this from GitHub (up from 4.2% in February), though the percentages of four sites have increased.
As I said in February, I expect the percentage of codes on social coding sites will continue to grow, especially since GitHub’s use is increasing quickly in the community. One factor some credit for this increase is that GitHub has made it easy to push code to Zenodo for archiving and DOI minting, and providing another way to cite code.*
As mentioned in my previous post, how codes are cited vary. Software citation will be the main topic at Tuesday’s inaugural Software Publishing Special Interest Group meeting at AAS225, which will be held at 3:45 PM in 615 of the Convention Center. If you are at AAS this week, you are welcome to attend and I hope to see you there!
*It was reported at .Astronomy6 that “some astro journals won’t even accept a DOI as a citation.” I don’t know which journals and hope someone will enlighten me; I would like to know the rationale for that stance and would gladly take this up with publishers.
One of the unconference sessions (proposed during the event) held at December’s .Astronomy was on software citation, this subject having come up in an earlier session on improving credit for software.
Discussion and comments in the session inspired me to look at astronomy’s current practices for citing software. Though not an exhaustive list, I looked in more than a dozen journals for citations for codes used in research, and below are some of the examples I gathered.
Someone — I don’t remember who — reported that Google Scholar does not index mentions of codes, GitHub repos, etc. as citations, because they are not papers. An opinion tweeted out about this summed up the sentiment in the room pretty well! I plan to take this up with Google after the AAS meeting. Fortunately, ADS does index properly formatted software references; the only reference listed in this post that I didn’t see captured by ADS was the URL for CAMB, which is not surprising (nor expected).
A subsequent post will include additional information and a list of resources about software citation, to be posted before the first Special Interest Group on software publishing meeting scheduled at AAS225 that will be held on Tuesday, January 6, from 3:45 PM – 4:45 PM in 615 in the Convention Center. The main topic of this meeting will be software citation, and all interested parties are welcome to attend.
The journals below were part of my hunting grounds for software citations. Ever had a citation to software you used in research refused by a publication? If so, I’m interested in knowing the details; please share here or send them to firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks!
American Institute of Physics Proceedings
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy and Computing
The Astronomical Journal
The Astrophysical Journal
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement
Classical and Quantum Gravity
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Physical Review D
Proceedings of the SPIE
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Additional screenshots of software citations:
The AAS’s Working Group on Astronomical Software (WGAS) has invited the ASCL to form a Special Interest Group (SIG) on software publication. We think this is a dandy idea and have accepted the invitation. The inaugural meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 6, from 3:45 PM – 4:45 PM in 615 in the Convention Center. This is immediately after the Licensing Astrophysics Codes: What You Need to Know special session that is from 2:00-3:30 in that same room.
As issues around software citation came up several times at this month’s .Astronomy meeting and has received subsequent discussion online since, it seems fitting for this to be the main topic for the first meeting of the SPSIG.
Please note that this SIG meeting does not appear in the AAS schedule. The meeting is open to anyone who is interested, and additional information will be posted here as it becomes available.
I’m delighted to offer the following guest post by Jonathan Petters, Data Management Consultant, Johns Hopkins Data Management Services, and thank him very much for it!
In a recent discussion on preservation and sharing of research data, a few participants expressed their concern (paraphrased here) that “My research community doesn’t know how to create a quality data management plan” and “We don’t know how to evaluate data management plans.” The astronomy community explicitly requested a little guidance. We in Johns Hopkins University Data Management Services have developed a few resources, described below, of use in both developing and evaluating data management plans within all research disciplines, including astronomy.
Funding agencies have long encouraged and expected that data and code used in the course of funded research be made available to those in the research discipline. NSF is an important funder of astronomical research that has such expectations (and the agency I will focus on here). A few years ago NSF began requiring data management plans as part of research proposal, in part to aid in the dissemination and sharing of research data and code. Following a February 2013 Office of Science and Technology Policy memo other US funding agencies are expected to follow suit with similar data management plan requirements, including the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
What does NSF say about writing and evaluating quality data management plans? A good overview of NSF data policies relevant for the AST community can be found in these slides from Daniel Katz, NSF). In general the National Science Foundation (NSF) states that data management will be defined by “the communities of interest.” The NSF AST-specific policy further states “MPS Divisions will rely heavily on the merit review process in this initial phase to determine those types of plan that best serve each community and update the information accordingly.” Neither statement is especially prescriptive and can leave researchers unclear as to what they should do.
Creating a plan
While effective research data management certainly has community- and discipline-specific attributes, there ARE aspects of effective data management that are generalizable across research disciplines. It is around these general aspects that we in Johns Hopkins University Data Management Services (JHUDMS) devised our Data Management Planning Questionnaire. We work through this questionnaire with researchers at Johns Hopkins to help them create effective data management plans.
The Questionnaire is designed to comprehensively hit upon the important aspects of effective research data management (e.g. data inputs/outputs in the research, ethical/legal compliance, standards and formats used, intended sharing and preservation, PI restrictions on the use of the data). By answering the applicable questions in the document, removing the questions/front matter and connecting the answers in each section into paragraphs, a researcher would be well on their way to a quality, well thought-out data management plan.
Two relevant side-notes:
1.) For the Questionnaire we consider code and software tools as one ‘kind’ of research data; thus analysis or simulation codes used in the course of your proposed research should be included as a Data Product. While research code and research data generated or processed by code are clearly NOT the same, there are many similarities in managing the two. In both cases effective management should include consideration of documentation, licensing, formats, associated metadata, and upon what platform(s) the data or code could be shared.
2.) Astronomy, as in other disciplines, conducts a substantial amount of research through large collaborations (e.g. surrounding HST or SDSS data). In these cases it is typical for investments in research data infrastructure to be made, and data policies/practices to be defined for those working with the data. Citing those policies and practices in a data management plan would be appropriate.
Evaluating a plan
To help researchers evaluate data management plans for their quality, my colleagues developed the Reviewer Guide and Worksheet for Data Management Plans (dotx). This Guide and Worksheet is a complement to our Questionnaire; it is a handy checklist by which a grant reviewer can determine whether a researcher thoroughly considered the important aspects of research data management.
For those who researchers saying to themselves, “The Questionnaire and Reviewer Guide are nice, but PLEASE just tell me what to do!!!”, I found two tweets from the code sharing session at the latest (223rd) AAS meeting in January to be quite relevant (h/t August Muench and Lucianne Walkowicz):
I wholeheartedly agree with both tweets. It is up to the research community members to police and enforce the data management and sharing practices they would like to see in their community. That’s how peer review works! So the next time you review astronomical research proposals, look over the data management plans carefully and bring up relevant thoughts and concerns to the review panel.
I hope the Data Management Planning Questionnaire and Reviewer Guide and Worksheet for Data Management Plans help you and other researchers in the astronomy community more fully develop expectations for data management and sharing practices. It’s likely your institution also has research data management personnel (like the JHUDMS at Hopkins) who are more than happy to help!