If a Python library is built can it be turned into a research paper? Will it be accepted?

  • Building a Python library from scratch, no matter how difficult is it (if it's too complicated it's not a feature, you should blame the developers!), is not doing research unless you wrote the library by yourself and then you can publish it for example here: joss.theoj.org . Otherwise, merely building a software library is not research... – Alone Programmer Sep 30 at 16:53
  • Thanks for the link. I felt that it might qualify for it. There's got to be an investigation that led to building it while conducting the investigation. Does that apply to programming languages? They too can't be considered as research? – user12075410 Sep 30 at 19:18
  • There seem to be two possible interpretations of this question: 1) Can you publish a peer-reviewed paper about a Python library? 2) Does this qualify as research? — The answer to Question 1 is a clear yes (I have done so myself and any example suffices for tis). The answer to Question 2 is somewhat opinion-based and philosophical. Probably neither question produces answers that actually help you. Please consider editing your question to address this. (Or ask a new question if the existing answers would be invalidated by this.) – Wrzlprmft Sep 30 at 20:06
  • @Wrzlprmft Actually (1) is the question asked ,only that this time it will be built by the individual before a peer review that will be published. Do you have any links to published works on libraries. You can add yours if you're okay with it. – user12075410 Sep 30 at 20:12
  • @user12075410: only that this time it will be built by the individual before a peer review that will be published. – I fail to make sense of this. How could the library be written after the publication? Also, peer reviews are usually not published (and even if they are, this does not seem to be what you are asking for). You can find my publications and software on my profile. – Wrzlprmft Sep 30 at 21:22

The point of research is the production of knowledge. If, after you take away all the code you’ve written and the datasets you’ve collected, and there’s nothing left, you’re not doing research, you’re doing development.

So, if you want to do artefact-oriented research like this, the question you have to ask yourself is this: what is the new knowledge you’re producing? Are you testing a new, better algorithm? Are you applying an existing algorithm in a new context and determining if it works there? Are you investigating how a complex system functions, or how it interacts with humans and/or the environment? What is the research question that you’re answering?

If you do determine that you’re doing research rather than development, however, there are a number of artefact-oriented research methodologies, however, such as the Design Science Research Methodology. You should be able to find more information on it with Google Scholar, if you’re a member of an institution that gives you access to their research journal subscriptions.

  • It was the research and publications on ai.google that led me here.Thanks for the answer. – user12075410 Sep 30 at 19:57

There might be research that leads you to build such a library, but coding itself, isn't research. But compilers, for example, were built on a ton of research prior to any coding beyond the experimental.

One often, in CS, does some research first and then builds something to validate the conclusions of the research. But the paper produced is about the research findings, not the code. Code optimizers fall in this category as do many aspects of operating systems.

But note that it starts with the research, not the code.

  • Also vice versa - one might write code to enable research. One might then release that code as a library to help other people's research. – Flyto Oct 1 at 20:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.