Congratulations!

While maintenance is a big part of the software life-cycle, user support can be just as time consuming - if not more so. Support needs can be reduced by providing (and maintaining) decent documentation, but this is also not something that funders seems to consider important.

Indeed, very good point!

Thanks to all co-authors on this work,
especially Dan McCloy and Eric Larson as my co-lead-authors,
and Alex Gramfort, @danielskatz.org, @arfon.bsky.social, Arnaud Delorme, @vlitvak.bsky.social, Scott Makeig, @robertoostenveld.bsky.social, Jan-Matthijs Schoffelen, Tim Tierney

We also believe that this is necessary to not only keep open source software packages around, but also to make them more inclusive.
If open source is seen as an important contribution to science, this will facilitate the participation of currently underrepresented groups.

We call for urgent change before it’s too late and software packages many of us rely on go unmaintained.
We need better valuation of open source work in academia and better funding mechanisms. Citing the software and not the paper can further help with giving credit to open source contributors.

And did you know that the academic incentive and funding systems are not supporting open source software well enough - especially not the work of maintaining already existing software to keep it usable?

Did you know that many of our software packages are relying on only 1-3 people who have sufficient oversight of the software to keep it going?
(Check the paper for our analysis!)

Congrats @olivia.science ! 🎉

There's cake? 🍰😉 Thanks, @sarangnemo.bsky.social !