What is discoverability?

Most academics today agree that sharing research materials is important and benefits society (Tenopir et al. 2011, Ferguson et al. 2023), yet there are worrying gaps between current and potential rates of academic code sharing. Only around 10-40% of papers that generate code share it (Cooper et al. 2026, Vinson and Kmec, 2026), and only between 24% and 40% of software mentions in the literature lead to source code (Howison and Bullard, 2015). Additionally, a UC OSPO study estimated that fewer than 30% of UC-affiliated repositories on GitHub have a license (Gomez et al. 2025). While some of these projects may have had good reasons for not sharing their code, citing their dependencies, or choosing a license, there can be little doubt that there is room for improvement when it comes to making academic code more findable, shareable, citable, and reusable.
While it’s easy enough to post some code on the internet, posting it in such a way that it will be found, understood, and possibly built upon requires a few additional steps. These steps may feel like extra work. However, they benefit everyone, including you: it has been shown that sharing code can boost citations, as can other open science practices (Maitner et al. 2024). Proper licensing and documentation can enable engagement with your software.
We use the term “discoverability” to refer to practices that help others find your code and figure out how to use it. These practices apply to all academic projects that produce code, not just mature software tools. Ancillary artifacts including licenses, documentation, citation metadata, and persistent identifiers help your code persist in the scholarly record, invite engagement from diverse users and contributors, and signal to potential sponsors that the project is a professional and trustworthy one.
Best practices for discoverability are dynamic and sometimes complex. The UC OSPO Network here is to summarize the experts’ recommendations into helpful checklists and guidelines. We also give advice on how to incorporate the latest AI tools to save time while maintaining the integrity of your work. By taking the time to consult these guidelines, you can help potential users find and build on your code, and help your project reach its long-term potential.
- Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., Manoff, M., & Frame, M. (2011). Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21101. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021101
- Ferguson, J., Littman, R., Christensen, G., Paluck, E. L., Swanson, N., Wang, Z., Miguel, E., Birke, D., & Pezzuto, J.-H. (2023). Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications, 14(1). 10.1038/s41467-023-41111-1
- Cooper, N. (2026). Data‐ and code‐archiving in the British Ecological Society journals: Present status and recommendations for future improvements. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 17(7), 1954–1966. 10.1111/2041-210x.70338
- Howison, J., & Bullard, J. (2015). Software in the scientific literature: Problems with seeing, finding, and using software mentioned in the biology literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2137–2155. 10.1002/asi.23538
- Gomez, J., Lovell, E., Lieggi, S., Cardenas, A. A., & Davis, J. (2025). Recipe for Discovery: A Pipeline for Institutional Open Source Activity. arXiv. 10.48550/ARXIV.2506.18359
- Maitner, B., Santos Andrade, P. E., Lei, L., Kass, J., Owens, H. L., Barbosa, G. C. G., Boyle, B., Castorena, M., Enquist, B. J., Feng, X., Park, D. S., Paz, A., Pinilla‐Buitrago, G., Merow, C., & Wilson, A. (2024). Code sharing in ecology and evolution increases citation rates but remains uncommon. Ecology and Evolution, 14(8). 10.1002/ece3.70030