The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Nine Best Practices for Research Software Registries and Repositories: A Concise Guide
Abstract
Scientific software registries and repositories serve various roles in their respective disciplines. These resources improve software discoverability and research transparency, provide information for software citations, and foster preservation of computational methods that might otherwise be lost over time, thereby supporting research reproducibility and replicability. However, developing these resources takes effort, and few guidelines are available to help prospective creators of registries and repositories. To address this need, we present a set of nine best practices that can help managers define the scope, practices, and rules that govern individual registries and repositories. These best practices were distilled from the experiences of the creators of existing resources, convened by a Task Force of the FORCE11 Software Citation Implementation Working Group during the years 2019-2020. We believe that putting in place specific policies such as those presented here will help scientific software registries and repositories better serve their users and their disciplines.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Registries, T. F. O. B. P. F. S., :, Monteil, A., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Ioannidis, A., Allen, A., Lee, A., Bandrowski, A., Wilson, B. E., Mecum, B., Du, C. F., Robinson, C., Garijo, D., Katz, D. S., Long, D., Milliken, G., Ménager, H., Hausman, J., Spaaks, J. H., Fenlon, K., Vanderbilt, K., Hwang, L., Davis, L., Fenner, M., Crusoe, M. R., Hucka, M., Wu, M., Hong, N. C., Teuben, P., Stall, S., Druskat, S., Carnevale, T., & Morrell, T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- arXiv
- 2012.13117
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nine Best Practices for Research Software Registries and Repositories: A Concise Guide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2012.13117
- The paper
- Registries, T. F. O. B. P. F. S., :, Monteil, A., Gonzalez-Beltran, A., Ioannidis, A., Allen, A., Lee, A., Bandrowski, A., Wilson, B. E., Mecum, B., Du, C. F., Robinson, C., Garijo, D., Katz, D. S., Long, D., Milliken, G., Ménager, H., Hausman, J., Spaaks, J. H., . . . Morrell, T. (2020). Nine Best Practices for Research Software Registries and Repositories: A Concise Guide. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2012.13117
