arxiv: 2605.02870 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

Recognition: unknown

Role of General Users in the Lifecycle of Scientific Software

2, (2) ESO, 3, (3) NAOJ, 4) ((1) NRAO, (4) JIVE), Bjorn Emonts (1), the CASA Team (1

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM

keywords softwareusergenerallifecycleuserscommunityastronomydata

0 comments

The pith

Software teams can involve general users in prioritizing development for tools like CASA without extra resources or deadline conflicts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how scientific software such as the Common Astronomy Software Applications (CASA) for radio astronomy is developed under limited resources against unlimited demand. Internal project priorities and deadlines often fail to match the specific needs of general users, who are the ultimate customers. It outlines practical avenues for software teams to engage these users in the lifecycle, including their role in prioritizing features, while managing expectations to achieve broader reach. This involvement is presented as beneficial to both the user community and the teams themselves.

Core claim

Based on the lifecycle of the Common Astronomy Software Applications for radio astronomy (CASA), avenues for software teams to interact with general users exist even when facing limited resources for user support. Involvement of users and user groups in prioritizing software development can benefit both the user community and the software teams.

What carries the argument

The CASA lifecycle as a case study for structured avenues of user and user-group involvement in prioritizing development under resource constraints.

Load-bearing premise

General user involvement in prioritizing software development can be achieved effectively without substantially increasing resource demands or conflicting with internal project deadlines.

What would settle it

If implementing user prioritization in CASA or a comparable project leads to missed internal deadlines or requires hiring additional support staff, the feasibility claim under limited resources would not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02870 by 2, (2) ESO, 3, (3) NAOJ, 4) ((1) NRAO, (4) JIVE), Bjorn Emonts (1), the CASA Team (1.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Lifecycle of the CASA software. CASA is released quarterly, with once view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: CASA development priorities through stakeholder representation. "In view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Helpdesk statistics. Total number of CASA-labeled Helpdesk tickets view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Layout of the CASA Docs documentation. Shown is the landing page view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: CASA compatibility with different Operating Systems. a). Survey statistics on the use of Operating Systems among the external user community. The figure is reproduced from CASA Memo 6 (Emonts 2018). The majority of users relies on Ubuntu for CASA processing, despite the fact that CASA is only officially supported for Linux/RedHat and Mac OS. b). Automated testing table in CASA Docs, where "T" indicates tes… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In science, the lifecycle of software products is typically managed with limited resources while facing unlimited demand. Scientific software requirements are necessarily often dominated by internal project specifications and deadlines, but these internal priorities, while beneficial for the community as a whole, do not always align with the individual needs of our ultimate customers: general users. For software products to have the broadest reach, ideally the general user community should be involved in all aspects of the data lifecycle, but reality is that user expectations need to be managed. Based on the lifecycle of the Common Astronomy Software Applications for radio astronomy (CASA), we will show avenues for software teams to interact with general users, even when facing limited resources for user support. We will discuss how involvement of users and user groups in prioritizing software development can benefit both the user community and the software teams. The contents of these proceedings were presented at the 35th conference on Astronomical Data Analysis Software & Systems (ADASS XXXV).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CASA team shares practical user-engagement tactics from their own experience, but the piece stays anecdotal with no new methods or data.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors use the CASA project as a case study to illustrate how scientific software teams can incorporate general user feedback into development cycles despite tight budgets and deadlines. They argue that while internal specs often take precedence, selective user involvement through groups can improve usability without overwhelming the team. On the positive side, the paper clearly articulates the challenges unique to scientific software, such as the gap between what benefits the broader community and what individual researchers need for their specific analyses. The discussion of managing expectations and using existing structures like user groups shows thoughtful consideration of real operational limits. This kind of insider perspective from the CASA team, which has been central to radio data processing for years, adds value as a reference point for similar efforts. Where it falls short is in the lack of any empirical backing. The recommendations are presented without data on their impact, such as changes in user satisfaction or development efficiency. Since it's based solely on one team's experiences, readers can't easily assess if these avenues would scale or apply elsewhere. The absence of even basic statistics or comparisons leaves the piece feeling more like a workshop talk than a documented study. Readers who would benefit are those involved in the development of astronomy software tools or open-source projects in related fields. It could spark useful conversations in a reading group about best practices for user support in resource-limited settings. I wouldn't cite it in my own work as it doesn't introduce new concepts or results. However, for a conference like ADASS, it warrants peer review to refine the advice and ensure it's useful to the community.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that scientific software development, as illustrated by the lifecycle of the Common Astronomy Software Applications (CASA) package for radio astronomy, can incorporate general users into prioritization and other aspects of the development process even with limited resources for user support. It argues that such involvement benefits both the user community and software teams while requiring management of user expectations, drawing on the authors' experiences presented at ADASS XXXV.

Significance. If the described avenues for user engagement are practical and adaptable, the manuscript could provide useful guidance to other scientific software projects in astronomy and related fields that operate under similar resource constraints, potentially leading to better-aligned development priorities and broader software adoption.

minor comments (3)

The abstract states that the paper 'will show avenues' for user interaction, but the manuscript would benefit from a clearer organizational structure, such as explicit headings or a bulleted list, to delineate each recommended avenue drawn from the CASA experience.
To strengthen the practical value for readers, consider adding one or two specific, anonymized examples from the CASA lifecycle illustrating how general user input influenced development priorities or feature implementation.
The manuscript could reference prior work on user engagement in open-source scientific software (e.g., studies from other astronomy packages or general software engineering literature) to better situate the CASA-based recommendations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the recognition that the approaches to user engagement described for CASA could offer practical guidance to other scientific software projects operating under similar constraints. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely descriptive experiential account

full rationale

The paper presents a descriptive account of user involvement practices drawn from the CASA software lifecycle, with no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or quantitative models. Its claims rest on project experience rather than any chain of logical steps that could reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing elements. The content is therefore self-contained with no identifiable circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experience report on software practices with no mathematical content, fitted parameters, axioms, or postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1001 out tokens · 30608 ms · 2026-05-08T17:15:16.042985+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Size-of-Computing Estimates for ngVLA Synthesis Imaging
[2]

Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI , year = 2007, editor =

CASA Architecture and Applications. Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI , year = 2007, editor =

2007
[3]

Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array , year = 2018, editor =

Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array. Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array , year = 2018, editor =

2018
[4]

Estimates of ALMA WSU Data Properties
[5]

Physics and Chemistry of Star Formation: The Dynamical ISM Across Time and Spatial Scales , year = 2023, editor =

The ALMA Wideband Sensitivity Upgrade. Physics and Chemistry of Star Formation: The Dynamical ISM Across Time and Spatial Scales , year = 2023, editor =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2211.00195 , archivePrefix =. 2211.00195 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.00195 2023
[6]

, keywords =

CASA on the Fringe-Development of VLBI Processing Capabilities for CASA. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac81ed , archivePrefix =. 2210.02275 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac81ed
[7]

Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXXII , year = 2025, editor =

CASA, the Common Astronomy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy and VLBI: a Reference Summary. Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXXII , year = 2025, editor =. doi:10.26624/WTOV6553 , adsurl =

work page doi:10.26624/wtov6553 2025
[8]

CASA Memo 6: User Survey and Helpdesk Statistics
[9]

and Granger, B

IPython: A System for Interactive Scientific Computing. Computing in Science and Engineering , year = 2007, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , adsurl =

work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007
[10]

casacore: Suite of C++ libraries for radio astronomy data processing
[11]

R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C

The ALMA Interferometric Pipeline Heuristics. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ace216 , archivePrefix =. 2306.07420 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ace216
[12]

2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

CASA, the Common Astronomy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 , archivePrefix =. 2210.02276 , primaryClass =

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642
[13]

doi:10.17226/26141 , adsurl =

Astro2020: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s. doi:10.17226/26141

work page doi:10.17226/26141
[14]

Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Volume II , year = 2001, editor =

Astronomical Software Strategies. Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Volume II , year = 2001, editor =. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0666-8_11 , adsurl =

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0666-8_11 2001