# HG changeset patch
# User luisf <luis.figueira@eecs.qmul.ac.uk>
# Date 1316698517 -3600
# Node ID 84ad0fe932042c4ef4d998e9a15a8839a8234776
# Parent  307c07c337ce9d5995d63fb88343f1afbdaf8104
survey results (work in progress)

diff -r 307c07c337ce -r 84ad0fe93204 survey_appendix.tex
--- a/survey_appendix.tex	Thu Sep 22 12:33:50 2011 +0100
+++ b/survey_appendix.tex	Thu Sep 22 14:35:17 2011 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,72 @@
+In October 2010 we opened an online survey, advertised to a
+number of senior researchers in other groups around the UK. This
+survey asked for detailed information about the software usage and authorship practices of
+researchers, with the aim of obtaining a number of individual case
+points for further examination as well as some broad numerical
+results. The survey, started in November 2010, closed in April 2011,
+with 54 complete and 23 partially complete responses. There were
+responses from at least 16 different institutions.
+
+
+\subsection{Software Development}
+
+Our survey shows that 66,6\% of researchers use more than one OS. Linux isn’t
+used as a single operating system by anybody, which seems to indicate
+that most Linux users use it for multi-platform developing or for
+specific software needs. SuperCollider, Android SDK/NDK, NET, PRAAT (Speech Researcher), CUDA-C
+(GPU Programming), Clojure, Presentation, R.
+
+Most researchers (56\%) use version control. This kind of system is
+more widely used by PHD students and Postdocs/Research
+Assistants. When asked for what kind of technologies were used, SVN
+(14) and GIT (7) were the most popular systems. CVS (5) and Mercurial
+(4) were the other available options. Many users use more than one of
+these systems simultaneously.
+
+When asked for the usage of code hosting services, 52\% of the researchers
+said their code stayed in their computers. The most used third-party
+source code hosting services is SourceForge (6 users). 10 users are
+using university source code version control tools. \textit{remove
+  numbers, only leave percentages}
+
+27 users do not produce or maintain software. 16 do, while 11 did not
+answer. \textit{percentages\ldots}
+
+Most users (57\%) do not plan to make any software available.
+
+When asked “Do you develop any software that you do not intend to
+publish?”, 52\% of the users answered no. Possible commercial use is
+the main justification given for not publishing the software at this
+point.
+
+\subsection{Reproducible Research}
+
+Most researchers (56\%) acknowledge they don't take the necessary
+steps to ensure sustainable and reproducible research. Many do not
+understand the concept of reproducible research. By analyzing this
+accordingly to the current position, we can see that PhD students are
+the ones that are less aware of the importance of reproducible
+research (even the ones that are almost finishing their PhD).
+
+Many of the researchers that ensure they do the steps necessary to
+reproducibility say they only give the code and/or data to interested
+researchers. Some researchers also say that they publish their code in
+their own pages. At the same time, there are indications that this
+procedure can lead to unsustainability itself. Many researchers
+complain about the amount of time and/or complexity of making research
+reproducible. Also many of them make only parts of their work
+available. Some researchers also complain about copyright issues in
+releasing data.
+
+Many researchers do not understand the full concept of
+reproducibility. Some assume that explaining the algorithm and the
+tools used is enough for other researchers to be able to reproduce
+their results. Finally, some typical (but not widely admitted) answers
+justify the decision not to embrace reproducibility due to messy code
+or code/data protection:
+
 
 %%% Local Variables: 
 %%% mode: latex
 %%% TeX-master: "cannam"
 %%% End: 
-
-This is the appendix.
\ No newline at end of file