@article{homburg21a,
	title        = {Diskussionsbeitrag - Handreichung zur Rezension von Forschungssoftware in den Altertumswissenschaften / Impulse - Recommendations for the review of archaeological research software},
	author       = {Homburg, Timo and Klammt, Anne and Mara, Hubert and Schmid, Clemens and Schmidt, Sophie Charlotte and Thiery, Florian and Trognitz, Martina},
	year         = 2021,
	month        = jan,
	day          = 19,
	publisher    = {Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte (DGUF)},
	journal      = {Archäologische Informationen},
	issn	     = {0341-2873},
	doi          = {10.11588/ai.2020.1.81422},
	url          = {https://www.dguf.de/fileadmin/AI/archinf-ev_homburg-etal.pdf},
	language     = {german},
	abstract     = {Motivated by numerous discussions around the increasing use of research software in the field of archaeology, this article outlines the aspects for its review. The evaluation of software is a complex topic, since its field of application and development context has a
considerable influence. In addition, there are many very different use cases, ranging from students wanting a quick solution for an exercise
to project developers, which have to integrate a software package into an existing infrastructure for continuous operation. Although this first
version of an impulse is based on equal contributions from archaeology and applied computer science, the focus is on evaluation criteria of
software in the field of archaeology. A major goal of this impulse is to sensitize future reviewers to the complexity of software evaluation. A
software review should enable the archaeological professional audience to make a quick, critical and – also towards the developers – fair
assessment of software. Priority recommendations include a description of the context in which the review was written and the requirements for specific use cases. In addition, a short tabular overview should enable a quick assessment of the technical, financial and legal
aspects. The need for future adaptations of this guideline was already identified during its development since both software development
and its evaluation in the digital age are expected to remain very dynamic.}
}