Open-source Software Sustainability Models: Initial White Paper From the Informatics Technology for Cancer Research Sustainability and Industry Partnership Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) program provides a series of funding mechanisms to create an ecosystem of open-source software (OSS) that serves the needs of cancer research. As the ITCR ecosystem substantially grows, it faces the challenge of the long-term sustainability of the software being developed by ITCR grantees. To address this challenge, the ITCR sustainability and industry partnership working group (SIP-WG) was convened in 2019. OBJECTIVE: The charter of the SIP-WG is to investigate options to enhance the long-term sustainability of the OSS being developed by ITCR, in part by developing a collection of business model archetypes that can serve as sustainability plans for ITCR OSS development initiatives. The working group assembled models from the ITCR program, from other studies, and from the engagement of its extensive network of relationships with other organizations (eg, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Open Source Initiative, and Software Sustainability Institute) in support of this objective. METHODS: This paper reviews the existing sustainability models and describes 10 OSS use cases disseminated by the SIP-WG and others, including 3D Slicer, Bioconductor, Cytoscape, Globus, i2b2 (Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside) and tranSMART, Insight Toolkit, Linux, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics tools, R, and REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), in 10 sustainability aspects: governance, documentation, code quality, support, ecosystem collaboration, security, legal, finance, marketing, and dependency hygiene. RESULTS: Information available to the public reveals that all 10 OSS have effective governance, comprehensive documentation, high code quality, reliable dependency hygiene, strong user and developer support, and active marketing. These OSS include a variety of licensing models (eg, general public license version 2, general public license version 3, Berkeley Software Distribution, and Apache 3) and financial models (eg, federal research funding, industry and membership support, and commercial support). However, detailed information on ecosystem collaboration and security is not publicly provided by most OSS. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend 6 essential attributes for research software: alignment with unmet scientific needs, a dedicated development team, a vibrant user community, a feasible licensing model, a sustainable financial model, and effective product management. We also stress important actions to be considered in future ITCR activities that involve the discussion of the sustainability and licensing models for ITCR OSS, the establishment of a central library, the allocation of consulting resources to code quality control, ecosystem collaboration, security, and dependency hygiene.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".