Developer experience · Empirical study of GitHub project-selection signals (publisher abstract and article landing page).

The Signals that Potential Contributors Look for When Choosing Open-source Projects

Peer-reviewed research · 2019

Huilian Sophie Qiu, Yucen Lily Li, Susmita Padala, Anita Sarma, Bogdan Vasilescu

Original paper ↗

Summary

The study identifies project signals that prospective contributors use when choosing projects, making visible project health and activity relevant to attraction.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Make project health, activity, contribution guidance, and welcoming norms legible on landing pages and issue lists.

Reported result

What the study found

The study identifies project signals that prospective contributors use when choosing projects, making visible project health and activity relevant to attraction.

Research question

What the authors investigated

What signals do potential contributors use when selecting OSS projects?

Design

Empirical study of GitHub project-selection signals (publisher abstract and article landing page).

Sample and setting

Potential contributors and open-source projects on GitHub; the fetched landing page identifies the study as CSCW research on project choice.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The fetched abstract-accessible page does not expose enough detail here to specify sample counts or causal effects; findings are about selection signals, not retention outcomes.

Research sources

Publisher/authoritative landing page and abstract/full text fetched: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359224 Firecrawl research job 01a14366-d263-71d0-bc44-b95482987b7b returned this citation and metadata.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.