mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Better Code, Better Sharing:On the Need of Analyzing Jupyter Notebooks

arXiv 1906.05234 ↗First posted 12 Jun 2019cs.SEcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

By bringing together code, text, and examples, Jupyter notebooks have become one of the most popular means to produce scientific results in a productive and reproducible way. As many of the notebook authors are experts in their scientific fields, but laymen with respect to software engineering, one may ask questions on the quality of notebooks and their code. In a preliminary study, we experimentally demonstrate that Jupyter notebooks are inundated with poor quality code, e.g., not respecting recommended coding practices, or containing unused variables and deprecated functions. Considering the education nature of Jupyter notebooks, these poor coding practices as well as the lacks of quality control might be propagated into the next generation of developers. Hence, we argue that there is a strong need to programmatically analyze Jupyter notebooks, calling on our community to pay more attention to the reliability of Jupyter notebooks.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 6; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

13 papers.

Sort: