Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

The Nature of Technical Debt in Research Software

Published 20 Mar 2026 in cs.SE | (2603.20415v1)

Abstract: Research software (also called scientific software) is essential for advancing scientific endeavours. Research software encapsulates complex algorithms and domain-specific knowledge and is a fundamental component of all science. A pervasive challenge in developing research software is technical debt, which can adversely affect reliability, maintainability, and scientific validity. Research software often relies on the initiative of the scientific community for maintenance, requiring diverse expertise in both scientific and software engineering domains. The extent and nature of technical debt in research software are little studied, in particular, what forms it takes, and what the science teams developing this software think about their technical debt. In this paper we describe our multi-method study examining technical debt in research software. We begin by examining instances of self-reported technical debt in research code, examining 28k code comments across nine research software projects. Then, building on our findings, we interview research software engineers and scientists about how this technical debt manifests itself in their experience, and what costs it has for research software and research outputs more generally. We identify nine types of self-admitted technical debt unique to research software, and four themes impacting this technical debt.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 1 like about this paper.