According to Guideline 13(interner Link), research software that has been used to generate and make research results publicly available should always be included in scientific discourse. Making research software accessible through recognised repositories supports the verifiability of scientific results, enables follow-up research on related questions, and promotes reuse of the findings.

Researchers remain responsible for deciding whether, how and where to make their research software publicly accessible, taking into account the standards and practices of their discipline. In line with the FAIR4RS principles(externer Link), efforts should be made to ensure that research software is as easily findable as possible for machines and that it is released under an appropriate licence for use in research so as to enable reuse, particularly with a view to further developing the software. This generally also includes transparent, verifiable documentation and provision of such elements as the source code, together with the underlying algorithms where applicable, the functionality of the research software, and its architecture (including compilers used, operating systems, information on data, rights management systems and governance structures, where relevant).

If research software developed in-house is to be made available not only to ensure the verifiability of research results but also for use or reuse by third parties, the rights holder of the research software may grant usage rights under an appropriate licence (see also Struck et al., 2020). However, in individual cases there may be reasons that prevent the public release of the research software including its source code, or the granting of usage rights under a licence. Generally speaking, in view of various facets of Article 5(3) of the German Basic Law (freedom of research) – such as the right not to publish – there may be reasons that justify limiting public access. These include ongoing publication processes that have not yet been completed, novelty-destroying disclosure with regard to intellectual property rights, conflicting third-party rights in connection with commissioned research, and ethical considerations in the context of security-related research.

• There may be valid reasons for imposing an embargo period on the publication of source code or executable files in order to safeguard legitimate interests, such as allowing the developers themselves to reuse or further develop the research software.
• Additionally, there may be reasons for only making compiled software publicly available – for instance to enable replication or reproduction of research results generated using the software – without requiring public release of the source code.
• It might also make sense to differentiate between the underlying algorithms and the source code.
• In addition, it is conceivable that access to certain content may only be granted to a limited group of individuals, or, in certain cases, to specific persons on request.

See also

Quality assurance in the development of research software(interner Link)

Handling of Research Software in the DFG’s Funding Activities(externer Link)

Barker, Chue Hong, Katz et al. (2022): Introducing the FAIR Principles for research software,(externer Link)

Struck, A., Loewe, A., Achhammer, E., Rack, F., Bach, F., Löffler, F., Seemann, G., Anzt, H., Funk, M., Unger, S., Druskat, S., & Friedl, S. (2020). A Guide for Publishing, Using, and Licensing Research Software in Germany. Zenodo.(externer Link)