Jul 2026· Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing· pp. 1-8· 0 citations· 20 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
The results show that RSEs most often improved code review by using pull requests, defining review expectations, adding lightweight process steps, and using tools and automation to reduce effort and increase consistency.
Abstract
The quality of research software directly impacts the quality of the research results. Peer code review can identify defects, improve design, and facilitate knowledge sharing. Previously, we conducted a survey to understand how Research Software Engineers (RSEs) view and use code review. Because the prior survey did not examine how RSEs implement code review or the challenges they face, we study here how RSEs implement code review improvement practices, the challenges that limit adoption, and the additional strategies they propose. To gather this insight, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews of RSEs. The results show that RSEs most often improved code review by using pull requests, defining review expectations, adding lightweight process steps, and using tools and automation (e.g., CI checks) to reduce effort and increase consistency. Key challenges included limited reviewer capacity and time, gaps in Git and software engineering skills, social and authority barriers to setting norms, and weak documentation or enforcement of standards. They also proposed lightweight training, clearer reviewer guidance (e.g., checklists), and better recognition of review and mentoring work. To ease peer code review adoption in research software, teams should begin with lightweight pull-request workflows, document a few clear review rules, use CI to enforce basics, and support reviewers with simple guidance, training, and recognition.
This study provides the first developer-experience-grounded, phenomenologically anchored account of software error origins within the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework, examining how inadequacies in development tools, developer expertise gaps, architectural failures, modern technology adoption challen...
Rahul Azmeera, James C. Hyatt· Journal of Technology and Sy...· 0 citations
The experience suggests that OSPOs can play a complementary role to RSE groups by lowering barriers to entry, scaling training, and embedding RSE best practices within research computing environments.
Fang Liu, Jeffrey S. Young, R. Rahaman· Practice and Experience in A...· 0 citations
This research aims to identify and validate key challenges and their solutions within the RE process for open‐source software development (OSSD) and propose best practices to address these challenges.
Fazli Rabi, M. Ilyas, Nasir Rashid et al.· Journal of Software: Evoluti...· 0 citations
Interviews with sixteen early-adopter software professionals who integrated LLM-based tools into their day-to-day work in early to mid-2023 offer actionable implications for developers, organizations, educators, and tool designers seeking to integrate LLMs responsibly into professional software practice.
Benyamin T. Tabarsi, Heidi Reichert, Sam Gilson et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 22 citations· ⚡1
Qu quantitative analysis of 622 peer reviews on review time, length, and correctness reveals that students are better at assessing actual correct submissions as correct than incorrect ones as incorrect, with test results and checklists slightly increasing their performance in identifying incorrect submissions.
Developer coreness, a continuous proxy measure of experience that measures how important and connected a developer is within a project, is used to measure the impact of developer coreness on code integration processes of popular OSS projects and shows that developers with higher coreness values have a higher probabilit...
Christian Hechtl, Thomas Bock, Ralf Ramsauer et al.· International Conference on...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.