본문 바로가기
  • Home

Analyzing STEM Research Software from the Perspectives of Software Sharing, Citation and Types

  • Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
  • 2026, 60(1), pp.373~397
  • Publisher : 한국문헌정보학회
  • Research Area : Interdisciplinary Studies > Library and Information Science
  • Received : January 21, 2026
  • Accepted : February 13, 2026
  • Published : February 28, 2026

Hyoungjoo Park 1 Seowon Kim 2 Hyoeun Kim 1 Choi Wooseong 1

1충남대학교
2충남대학교 문헌정보학과

Excellent Accredited

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the current status of research software identified in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) repositories, specifically focusing on sharing, citations, citations based on sharing, authors, unique identifiers, and software types. This study examines both individual disciplines and the STEM field as a whole. The specific disciplines analyzed include astrophysics, biological sciences, computing, earth sciences, mathematics, and technology. The analysis was conducted on over 565,000 research software records indexed in the Data Citation Index (DCI), which indexes and tracks data from 453 repositories worldwide. The findings reveal that most STEM disciplines designate software types simply as “software,” and these records tended to have high citation rates. Exceptionally, the fields of computing and technology provided more detailed specifications for software types. In the computing field, various software types received citations relatively evenly; however, in the technology field, those simply labeled as “software” accounted for the majority of citations. In some instances across STEM fields, the software type was left blank. Regarding distribution, CRAN and Figshare were identified as the top two repositories for software sharing in STEM, whereas CRAN and Bioconductor emerged as the top two repositories for software citations. While most research software provided essential metadata, some critical information—such as author name and publication year—was occasionally missing. The majority of software listed individual researchers as co-authors rather than institutional authors. The contribution of this study lies in its comprehensive and detailed examination of the formal practices of research software across more than 453 global repositories, offering insights into both specific academic disciplines and the STEM field at large.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2024 are currently being built.

This paper was written with support from the National Research Foundation of Korea.