How do Software Engineering Researchers Use GitHub? An Empirical Study of Artifacts & Impact

TL;DR

This empirical study investigates how software engineering researchers use GitHub for sharing artifacts, analyzing repository impact, author engagement, and the correlation with research influence across top venues.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis of research repositories on GitHub, highlighting factors influencing their popularity and impact, and discusses implications for research incentives and community engagement.

Findings

Popular repositories correlate with well-cited papers.

Author responsiveness influences repository impact.

Many repositories lack sustained maintenance.

Abstract

Millions of developers share their code on open-source platforms like GitHub, which offer social coding opportunities such as distributed collaboration and popularity-based ranking. Software engineering researchers have joined in as well, hosting their research artifacts (tools, replication package & datasets) in repositories, an action often marked as part of the publications contribution. Yet a decade after the first such paper-with-GitHub-link, little is known about the fate of such repositories in practice. Do research repositories ever gain the interest of the developer community, or other researchers? If so, how often and why (not)? Does effort invested on GitHub pay off with research impact? In short: we ask whether and how authors engage in social coding related to their research. We conduct a broad empirical investigation of repositories from published work, starting with ten thousand papers in top SE research venues, hand-annotating their 3449 GitHub (and Zenodo) links, and studying 309 paper-related repositories in detail. We find a wide distribution in popularity and impact, some strongly correlated with publication venue. These were often heavily informed by the authors investment in terms of timely responsiveness and upkeep, which was often remarkably subpar by GitHubs standards, if not absent altogether. Yet we also offer hope: popular repositories often go hand-in-hand with well-citepd papers and achieve broad impact. Our findings suggest the need to rethink the research incentives and reward structure around research products requiring such sustained contributions.