# data[].attributes.body
How can partners such as ARDC, QCIF, Google, NCI continue to support RSE Australia, RSE Asia, and RSEs in general? Training? Presentations? Other?

# data[].attributes.body
Industry SE teams have senior engineers and junior engineers. This nurtures the growth of early-career software engineers, and increases the performance of the team as a whole.  RSEs in academia often lack this structure. How can we create a similar culture in our institutions?

# data[].attributes.headline
How can I convince my organisation to make me an Associate Professor of RSEs?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can I convince my organisation to make me an Associate Professor of RSEs?

# data[].attributes.body
Who else has done it and how can I use that for leverage?

# data[].attributes.headline
Publishing: Editorial and review policies

# data[].attributes.subject
Publishing: Editorial and review policies

# data[].attributes.body
What to do if asked to review an academic paper that relies on software but does not provide the source code? What if source code is provided but it runs in a proprietary environment only? What is best practices for journals to require source code without putting an onerous burden on authors?

# data[].attributes.headline
What do we mean by career progression as an RSE? or What exactly does the most senior RSE look like?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do we mean by career progression as an RSE? or What exactly does the most senior RSE look like?

# data[].attributes.body
I'm curious to know what people mean when they say career progression for an RSE?

What exactly does the most senior RSE look like?

I feel that if I could understand what that means to the community, it would make more sense when we talk about career progression more generally.

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions to ask your supervisor at your RSE performance review, or at an RSE interview

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions to ask your supervisor at your RSE performance review, or at an RSE interview

# data[].attributes.body
What are the questions one should ask or just sharing experiences to set a benchmark for expectations for RSEs?

# data[].attributes.body
Knowledge is often silo-ed - so much so that even disciplines with overlapping ares of interest can separately 're-invent the wheel', so to speak. What are some good examples of this that you have come across in your experience? How would you even know if another field has also implemented a solution that your field has? How could we increase transparency or promote visibility so that we can learn from each other and not have to lose time, and resources?

see original discussion on GitHub: https://github.com/rse-aunz/organisation/discussions/53

# data[].attributes.body
Recognition for software outputs in research is growing and in some places (e.g. Monash) these outputs are being recognised as a first-class output along with papers and other equivalent work.

# data[].attributes.body
Maintaining software and systems is vital, but it's very hard to fit into how work at universities is structured around always going for the next grant, the next project. Research infrastructure positions should help with this in theory, but in practice it can still be difficult to justify maintenance time when the university still wants you to get involved in as many grants as possible. How are people managing this tension? How can RSEs as a group communicate the importance of maintenance?

# data[].attributes.body
A Web Platform for RSEs should promote collaboration and sharing across the RSE community.
What features should be top priority? For example:

User profiles

Registry of research software

Project profiles

Forums

etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Community projects to demonstrate the value of RSEs and to raise our profile internationally

# data[].attributes.subject
Community projects to demonstrate the value of RSEs and to raise our profile internationally

# data[].attributes.body
What are some projects that we could do as a community to demonstrate the value of RSEs and to raise our profile internationally?

This could be a session where we throw some ideas around that we could then look into.

See one specific idea in https://github.com/orgs/rse-aunz/discussions/47

# data[].attributes.body
Culture shift - commensurate recognition and acknowledgement for intellectual academic contributions

# data[].attributes.headline
Should we create an annual RSE award? Or something along those lines?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should we create an annual RSE award? Or something along those lines?

# data[].attributes.body
This would demonstrate that RSEs have value and could raise the profile of RSEs (e.g. by asking researchers to nominate or getting it into newsletters).

It could also demonstrate value of the projects RSEs are on and raise those project's profiles too.

# data[].attributes.body
how to achieve Computational Reproducibility ? what are you currently doing?

# data[].attributes.body
The ways in which we can cite, acknowledge, and "measure" or "quantify" RSE activities/outputs.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can open source contributors outside of academia + research spaces help RSE?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can open source contributors outside of academia + research spaces help RSE?

# data[].attributes.body
Not just a hired developer throwing code from a client to an open source project and then a researcher picking up the optimized code down the line.

A lot of open source starts and used in research, but not all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Benchmarking domain-specific research workflow solutions at an international level 

# data[].attributes.subject
Benchmarking domain-specific research workflow solutions at an international level 

# data[].attributes.body
This is an idea to demonstrate the value of RSEs and to raise our profile internationally.

There is a need for fit-for-purpose domain-specific research workflow solutions within an organisation.

These workflows should be developed at an international level.

This session could help to explain why this project might be of interest to the RSE community, and the research community.

More details here in this presentation:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAE7wJ12BRg/D5SAFKnYY1EUjnJU7RDBNg/view?utm_content=DAE7wJ12BRg&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=homepage_design_menu

# data[].attributes.body
Do you practice Devops or CI/CD?

How do you get non-technical researchers to participate in hosting their research projects? How do you provide funded, sustainable, long-term support?

What tech do you use for hosting? Static sites, K8s, VMs, Serverless, Bare Metal?

Do you use AWS/GCP/Azure, IaC? Who's paying for it? How much access do you give to researchers in Cloud accounts?

Do you host on-prem? What are the advantages & disadvantages of Cloud vs on-prem?

How do you 'productionise' research software? How do you get from a script on your machine, to an HPC job, to a hosted service?

# data[].attributes.body
Come give a 3-5 minute lighting talk about your project.
What's the vision, what's the impact? what tools are you using?

# data[].attributes.headline
#BridgingTheGap between #Biologists and #Programmers 

# data[].attributes.subject
#BridgingTheGap between #Biologists and #Programmers 

# data[].attributes.body
All biologists may NOT code owing to lack of  rigorous STEMM curriculum in their career paths. Likewise, all programmers need NOT capitalise their interests in biology.  Taken together, they can be the wonderful scientists and technopreneurs of the world. Come, join this board to discuss on how could we leverage interests in these two spheres! We will discuss how to overcome weaknesses and convert them to strengths!

# data[].attributes.headline
Tips and tricks for pangeo/zarr/xarray workflows

# data[].attributes.subject
Tips and tricks for pangeo/zarr/xarray workflows

# data[].attributes.body
Do you use these workflows? What works? What doesn't work? Let's share our hard won knowledge!

# data[].attributes.body
[REQUIRES DETAILS]

# data[].attributes.headline
What have people in the RSE community really found out when using cloud for research?

# data[].attributes.subject
What have people in the RSE community really found out when using cloud for research?

# data[].attributes.body
[REQUIRES DETAILS]

# data[].attributes.body
what are your challenges and the tools you use?

# data[].attributes.body
What are your perspectives of academic best practices of modern research methods and, drivers of computational reproducibility as technical implementations of FAIR principles?

# data[].attributes.headline
How do people really use GitHub Actions?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do people really use GitHub Actions?

# data[].attributes.body
How people really use GitHub Actions:

https://neverworkintheory.org/2022/05/23/wessel-github-actions.html

# data[].attributes.body
[REQUIRES DETAILS]

# data[].attributes.body
[REQUIRES DETAILS]

# data[].attributes.body
How to promote CODECHECK https://codecheck.org.uk/ and re-inforce the RSE role in research?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A process for independent reproduction of computations underlying research
CODECHECK tackles one of the main challenges of computational research by supporting codecheckers with a workflow, guidelines and tools to evaluate computer programs underlying scientific papers. The independent time-stamped runs conducted by codecheckers will award a "certificate of reproducible computation" and increase availability, discovery and reproducibility of crucial artefacts for computational sciences. See the project page for a full description of problems, solutions, and goals and take a look at the GitHub organisation for examples of CODECHECKs and tools.

The CODECHECK principles

1. Codecheckers record but don't investigate or fix.

More about this principle...
A codechecker is _not_ required to fix workflows, but to document the given state of documentation and executability. Of course, given a level of interested and skills, a codechecker may go beyond simple small fixes and actively collaborate with an author to create a better research output. The codechecker's report provides helpful input to the scientific review, e.g., to help the reviewer's understanding. But a CODECHECK does not evaluate scientific merit! A failed CODECHECK does not imply the rejection of a submission. Codechecker take the pictures at a crime scene, they do not hunt the murderer.

2. Communication between humans is key.
More about this principle... The priority in all documentation and metadata is that a human codechecker can understand them. The codechecker is _not_ making a scientific judgement. It is also close to impossible to make a CODECHECK blind. Therefore a CODECHECK must not be anonymised must provide a two-way means of communication between author and codechecker. Codecheckers are supported by formal metadata, automation, and reproducibility infrastructure, yet the CODECHECK shall not rely on them. Codechecks may be conducted by existing stakeholders in the submission process (e.g., a reviewer), but may also be handled with new roles and by people underrepresented in classic peer-review, such as early career researchers (ECRs) or research software engineers (RSEs).

3. Credit is given to codecheckers.
More about this principle... Software and its review are crucial for research in the age of digitisation, so the contribution to the scientific body of knowledge in the form of a codecheck gets the credit it deserves. If a CODECHECK was conducted as part of a review process, (a) the publisher ensures a proper creditation to the level given to scientific reviewers, e.g. by listen the codechecker on an article or journal page (with number of reviews) or by depositing metadata to public databases (e.g., CrossRef, Publons), and (b) a sentence in the methods section is added mentioning the occured CODECHECK and the reviewer name. The deposited metadata includes a codechecker's ORCID, time, journal, and (if published) the article DOI. This principle intentionally does not regulate if/how the output of the CODECHECK is deposited and who does it. Ideally, though the contribution made by the codechecker is openly published in the form of a DOI-able artefact and the sentence in the methods sections links to it as a simple hyperlink/URL.

4. Workflows must be auditable.

More about this principle...
Common sense and a collaborative process are the main drivers behind the level of documentation, the degree of openness, and the amount of data that is checked. But the minimal requirement is that the codechecker has enough material to validate the workflow submitted by the authors. This means the code could be executed once by following the provided instructions and selected outputs, e.g. figures or data files, are created. Ideally, the execution is fully scripted, and the execution can be triggered by a running a single command. Being executed once means that a detailed investigation may occur at a later time. Being auditable includes that authors provide data and code for relevant analysis steps and visualisations to the codecheckers, but does not imply that all of the code associated with an article must be checked. The CODECHECK is not automated on purpose: automation may lead to people gaming the system, and may hide details that eventually decrease level of certainty that a codechecker has in their assessment.

These basic principles ensure they are feasible to add in a scholarly communication process but still have a huge positive impact on the transparency and usefulness of the published material. They strike a balance between the ideals of auditable high-quality research software and the reality of publication pressure and only slowly changing academic evaluation practices. Of course, numerous requirements on openness/transparency (e.g. depositing the CODECHECK report publicly with a DOI), about software quality (tests, releases, documentation), on copyright/licensing, and regarding best practices for computer-based analyses (e.g. workflow management, data/software citation) are thinkable, but intentionally remain to be defined by implementations of the principles in each community of practice. While the CODECHECK initiators strongly support of Open Science, a CODECHECK does not exclude research not falling into your definition of Open Science.

Check out our FAQ page for more information about the limitations of a CODECHECK.

In the future we hope to update these principles and to work together with researchers, educators, editors, and publishers to raise the bar towards very high reproducibility and openness across all domains and communities of research.

The principles can be implemented in different ways. See the process page for details about the stakeholders and dimensions of variations in CODECHECKs within a scholarly peer review. The CODECHECK community process describes a concrete realisation, including practical requirements and steps.
If you want to get involved as a codechecker in the community or want to apply the CODECHECK principles in your journal or conference, see the Get Involved page.
Stephen Eglen presented CODECHECK at The 14th Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing 2019. You can take a look at the poster and the slides, or watch the video recording.

To stay in touch with the project, follow the project team members on Twitter:

To give a quick overview of the project, feel free to use or extend the existing slide decks.

To cite CODECHECK in scientific publications, please use the following citation/reference:

Eglen, S., & Nüst, D. (2019). CODECHECK: An open-science initiative to facilitate the sharing of computer programs and results presented in scientific publications. Septentrio Conference Series, (1). https://doi.org/10.7557/5.4910

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A process for independent reproduction of computations underlying research CODECHECK tackles one of the main challenges of computational research by supporting codecheckers with a workflow, guidelines and tools to evaluate computer programs underlying scientific papers. The independent time-stamped runs conducted by codecheckers will award a "certificate of reproducible computation" and increase availability, discovery and reproducibility of crucial artefacts for computational sciences.

# data[].attributes.body
what are your challenges and findings?

# data[].attributes.headline
What would a secure RSE position look like?

# data[].attributes.subject
What would a secure RSE position look like?

# data[].attributes.body
let's imagine the scenario what rewarding career pathways for RSEs look like.

# data[].attributes.body
[needs more info]

# data[].attributes.headline
Let's discuss employment realities, as a student, as a grad, as a postgrad, as an ECR ...

# data[].attributes.subject
Let's discuss employment realities, as a student, as a grad, as a postgrad, as an ECR ...

# data[].attributes.body
"As a student, I'm kind of curious what sort of jobs I should be looking for after graduation, or what kind of undergraduate opportunities are available."

This is a great jumping off point for what could be a wide-ranging discussion on the realities and expectations of employment in the field.

# data[].attributes.headline
Renumeration of RSE vs the private sector

# data[].attributes.subject
Renumeration of RSE vs the private sector

# data[].attributes.headline
What is your career progression as a non-code RSE or Compensated Open Source Contributor? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What is your career progression as a non-code RSE or Compensated Open Source Contributor? 

# data[].attributes.body
Code contributor -> Software Developer pathway is clear, but what about for artists? User Testers? Technical Writers?

# data[].attributes.headline
Can your career be sustained without being tied to a single employer? Feeling tied because of niche recognition of RSE pathway. Other sources of funding, grants?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can your career be sustained without being tied to a single employer? Feeling tied because of niche recognition of RSE pathway. Other sources of funding, grants?

# data[].attributes.body
For Open Source Projects, there are

Community Funding

NumFOCUS, OpenCollective (like Patereon)

Grants from foundations investing in Open Science

Sloan, Moore, NASA

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting the RSE work - sustainability of this career track

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting the RSE work - sustainability of this career track

# data[].attributes.body
[DETAILS REQUIRED]

# data[].attributes.body
To see how others are addressing the academia - software development "abyss"

# data[].attributes.body
[REQUIRES DETAILS]

# data[].attributes.body
Value and waste in software engineering:

https://neverworkintheory.org/2022/05/23/galster-waste.html