[acdha]

> Sure, but there is no reward for research departments to produce high quality code. Their job is to experiment and publish, maintainable bug free(unless it effects their code) doesn't get rewarded.

This isn't completely true. I'm familiar with at least few projects which got grants specifically to build tools for other scientists and those were great for funding general software engineering jobs not tied to the usual academic publication/job cycle. That was good for supporting ongoing upgrades — nobody gets a publication for upgrading a dependency, which is how you end up with someone keeping a Windows 95 box on life support for years because they were focused on science – and also for supporting things like good documentation since that's a serious time commitment.

It'd be an idea to scale up things like that for identified high-impact projects, with the trick being finding someone capable of overseeing software engineering rather than the usual academic focus of existing grant panels. Seems like something which might be a fit under the Commerce department since there's a lot of stuff which American businesses benefit from but generally do not directly support.

[peterwoerner]

You're a right, it isn't completely thankless. And it was suggested to me as a great way to increase citations was to write my algorithm to work in LAMMPs. Nevertheless, I looked at the risk-reward (and also considered the algorithm I was working on worthless and decided to punt).

[acdha]

Oh, I completely agree. The projects I saw were considered novel for actually getting funding for staff engineering positions which didn't follow the regular academic track. They had to do that to get the right people since the grad students were heavily incentivized to focus on things which would get noteworthy publications and you couldn't get experienced software engineers on the academic pay scale unless you hit the unicorn of someone who was really interested in the domain and didn't like money.