Pete Bankhead

The short version is that I single-handedly wrote the software as a postdoc but was blocked from releasing it open-source for years, while the environment in which I was working became increasingly toxic. I handed in my notice as a last-ditch attempt to see it released. (2/n)

This worked - but meant I was out of academia, and my old group were free to take the credit. Which they did. It was strange to see people suddenly become huge fans of open science, speaking like they were my biggest supporters rather than the reason I left. (3/n)

I know the authors. They did not write a single line of code. They did not answer a single user question on the forum. They did not support its release. They do not deserve the credit. Everything they describe happened in the years since I left, because I left. (5/n)

It seems they've cleverly used the passive voice and their affiliation to create the impression they were instrumental in conceiving, developing and supporting the software. They were not. It's almost impressive they managed to write the paper without mentioning me once. (6/n)

The truth is QuPath is open-source because I worked on it constantly over years, learned a new level of stubbornness, believed in it enough to leave two jobs - and because I have a partner who has supported me through the frustratingly unnecessary challenges of it all. (7/n)

In the end, it's just software. Technology moves on quickly. Looking back, I'm not sure it was worth the personal cost. But I hope it will make a difference: making biomedical research a bit more efficient, making AI a bit more accessible, making science a bit more open. (8/n)

If it does, it'll only be because of the things people do with it. Pathologists, biologists, and others with skills I'll never have, who need more than POC algorithms & expensive software to make the most of their imaging - working a bit better, discovering a bit faster. (9/n)