A developer's popularity plays a crucial role in their success within open source software (OSS) communities and their access to sponsorship opportunities. This study seeks to answer the question: which signals have the most predictive power for popularity and sponsorship volume on social coding platforms? Using algorithm-supported abductive theory generation supplemented by qualitative insights from observations and interviews, we arrive at a theory of peer evaluation in OSS communities. We examine a large number of signals and categorize them. The two categories are signaling via self-disclosure through profile signals and signaling via contribution quantity and quality through behavioral signals. The large amount of data available to us allows us to use machine learning techniques to arrive at top-ranking predictors within each category. We generate our theory by finding robust patterns and test our theory using a hold-out sample. Our findings indicate that easily observable credibility-enhancing and approachability-related developer profile signals hold greater predictive importance in shaping popularity. However, harder to observe and more complex behavioral signals show greater predictive importance for sponsorship volume. These results signify that OSS social coding platforms are not meritocratic, as developer self-disclosure significantly influences popularity. In contrast, sponsorship decisions, due to their high cost and irreversibility, depend on within-platform contribution-related signals. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of popularity and sponsorship within peer-to-peer followership networks in OSS communities. Through our research, platforms are better informed about the predictors of popularity and sponsorship and can introduce measures to enhance the meritocratic nature of these communities. Developers who seek influence and sponsorship on the platform can be more strategic about information disclosure and their contributions.
AbdiHWilliamsLJ (2010) Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Encyclopaedia of Research Design: 1–7.
2.
AlsahafAPetkovNShenoyV, et al. (2022) A framework for feature selection through boosting. Expert Systems with Applications187: 115895.
3.
AntheunisMLValkenburgPMPeterJ (2010) Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior26(1): 100–109.
4.
BayatiSPeirisKDA (2018) Road to success: How newcomers gain reputation in open source community. Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems285, https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/285.
5.
BerenteNSeidelSSafadiH (2019) Data-driven computationally intensive theory development. Information Systems Research30(1): 50–64.
6.
BlanchardSJNoseworthyTJPancerE, et al. (2023) Extraction of visual information to predict crowdfunding success. Production and Operations Management32(12): 4172–4189.
7.
BlincoeKSheoranJGogginsS, et al. (2016) Understanding the popular users: Following, affiliation influence and leadership on GitHub. Information and Software Technology70: 30–39.
BlindKSchubertT (2024) Estimating the GDP effect of open source software and its complementarities with R&D and patents: Evidence and policy implications. Journal of Technology Transfer49: 466–491.
10.
BoydRLSerajAASPennebakerJW (2022) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. https://www.liwc.app/.
11.
BreimanL (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning45: 5–32.
12.
CaiYZhuD (2016) Reputation in an open source software community: Antecedents and impacts. Decision Support Systems91: 103–112.
13.
ChawlaNVBowyerKWHallLO, et al. (2002) SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research16: 321–357.
14.
ChenTGuestrinC (2016) XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 13-17 August, 785–794.
15.
ChoudhuryPAllenRTEndresMG (2021) Machine learning for pattern discovery in management research. Strategic Management Journal42(1): 30–57.
16.
CuiRGallinoSMorenoA, et al. (2018) The operational value of social media information. Production and Operations Management27(10): 1749–1769.
17.
DengJGuoJZhouY, et al. (2019) RetinaFace: Single-stage dense face localisation in the wild. http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00641.
DroverWWoodMSCorbettAC (2018) Toward a cognitive view of signalling theory: Individual attention and signal set interpretation. Journal of Management Studies55(2): 209–231.
20.
EckhardtEKaatsEJansenS, et al. (2014) The merits of a meritocracy in open source software ecosystems. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
21.
FalkingerJ (2007) Attention economies. Journal of Economic Theory133(1): 266–294.
22.
FerreiraIChengJAdamsB (2021) The “shut the f**k up” phenomenon: Characterizing incivility in open source code review discussions. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction5.
23.
FieselerCMeckelMRanziniG (2015) Professional personae – How organizational identification shapes online identity in the workplace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(2): 153–170.
24.
GhoshBPGalbrethMR (2023) The weight of the crowd, social information credibility, and firm strategy. Production and Operations Management32(4): 1079–1095.
GuadagnoRECialdiniRB (2005) Online persuasion and compliance: Social influence on the Internet and beyond. The Social Net: The Social Psychology of the Internet: 91–113.
31.
HannIHRobertsJASlaughterSA (2013) All are not equal: An examination of the economic returns to different forms of participation in open source software communities. Information Systems Research24(3): 520–538.
32.
HaruvyESethiSPZhouJ (2008) Open source development with a commercial complementary product or service. Production and Operations Management17(1): 29–43.
33.
HaskelJWestlakeS (2017) Capitalism without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400888320
34.
HoffmannMNagleFZhouY (2024) The value of Open Source Software. Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper No. 24-038, Available at SSRN: httpss://ssrn.com/abstract=4693148 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4693148.
35.
HowisonJCrowstonK (2014) Collaboration through open superposition: A theory of the open source way. MIS Quarterly38(1): 29–50.
36.
HuDZhaoJLChengJ (2012) Reputation management in an open source developer social network: An empirical study on determinants of positive evaluations. Decision Support Systems53(3): 526–533.
37.
JaniszewskiCvan OsselaerSMJ (2022) Abductive theory construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology32(1): 175–193.
JiangJLoDYangY, et al. (2019b) A first look at unfollowing behavior on GitHub. Information and Software Technology105(July 2017): 150–160.
40.
JiangQTanCHSiaCL, et al. (2019a) Followership in an open-source software project and its significance in code reuse. MIS Quarterly43(4): 1303–1319.
41.
JinYTanYHuangJ (2022) Managing contributor performance in knowledge-sharing communities: A dynamic perspective. Production and Operations Management31(11): 3945–3962.
42.
JoinsonANReipsUDBuchananT, et al. (2010) Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human-Computer Interaction25(1): 1–24.
KortPMZaccourG (2011) When should a firm open its source code: A strategic analysis. Production and Operations Management20(6): 877–888.
45.
KursaMBRudnickiWR (2010) Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software36(11): 1–13.
46.
LeiteFPde BaptistaP (2022) The effects of social media influencers’ self-disclosure on behavioral intentions: The role of source credibility, parasocial relationships, and brand trust. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice30(3): 295–311.
47.
LeppamakiMMustonenM (2003) Spence revisited – signalling with externality: The case of open source programming. Discussion Papers, No. 558:2003, 1–21. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/16853.
48.
LindbergA (2020) Developing theory through integrating human and machine pattern recognition. Journal of the Association for Information Systems21(1): 90–116.
49.
Lundberg and Su-In Lee (2017) A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874.
50.
MarlowJDabbishL (2013) Activity traces and signals in software developer recruitment and hiring. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work: 145–156.
MoldonLStrohmaierMWachsJ (2021) How gamification affects software developers: Cautionary evidence from a natural experiment on GitHub. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: 549–561.
53.
MoqriMMeiXQiuL, et al. (2018) Effect of “Following” on contributions to open source communities. Journal of Management Information Systems35(4): 1188–1217.
54.
MusseauJMeyersJSSieniawskiGP, et al. (2022) Is open source eating the world’s software? Measuring the proportion of open source in proprietary software using Java binaries. Proceedings of the 2022 Mining Software Repositories Conference: 561–565.
55.
NazlanNHTanfordSMontgomeryR (2018) The effect of availability heuristics in online consumer reviews. Journal of Consumer Behavior17(5): 449–460.
56.
OpenUK (2023) State of Open: The UK in 2023 Phase Two, Part 1 “Show us the Money-The Economics of Open Source Software.” https://openuk.uk/participants/sponsors/.
57.
PengG (2019) Co-membership, networks ties, and knowledge flow: An empirical investigation controlling for alternative mechanisms. Decision Support Systems118: 83–90.
58.
PengGWanYWoodlockP (2013) Network ties and the success of open source software development. Journal of Strategic Information Systems22(4): 269–281.
59.
RamanNCaoMTsvetkovY, et al. (2020) Stress and burnout in open source: Toward finding, understanding, and mitigating unhealthy interactions. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results: 57–60.
60.
RegnerT (2021) Crowdfunding a monthly income: An analysis of the membership platform Patreon. Journal of Cultural Economics45(1): 133–142.
61.
RongKZhouDShiX, et al. (2022) Social information disclosure of friends in common in an e-commerce platform ecosystem: An online experiment. Production and Operations Management31(3): 984–1005.
62.
SchaarschmidtMWalshGvon KortzfleischHFO (2015) How do firms influence open source software communities? A framework and empirical analysis of different governance modes. Information and Organization31(2): 984–1005.
63.
SenRSinghSSBorleS (2012) Open-source software success: Measures and analysis. Decision Support Systems52(2): 364–372.
64.
SetiaPBayusBLRajagopalanB (2020) The takeoff of open source software: A signaling perspective based on community activities. MIS Quarterly44(3): 1439–1458.
65.
SheldonP (2009) “I’ll poke you. You’ll poke me!”; Self-disclosure, social attraction, predictability and trust as important predictors of Facebook relationships. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace3(2), Article 1. https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4225.
66.
ShenCMongeP (2011) Who connects with whom? A social network analysis of an online open source software community. First Monday16(6).
67.
ShimadaNXiaoTHataH, et al. (2022) GitHub sponsors: Exploring a new way to contribute to open source. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: 1058–1069.
68.
ShresthaYRHeVFPuranamP, et al. (2021) Algorithm supported induction for building theory: How can we use prediction models to theorize?Organization Science32(3): 856–880.
69.
SinghPTanY (2010) Developer heterogeneity and formation of communication networks in open source software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems27(3): 179–210.
70.
SpenceM (1973) Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics87(3): 355–374.
71.
SteigenbergerNWilhelmH (2018) Extending signaling theory to rhetorical signals: Evidence from crowdfunding. Organization Science29(3): 529–546.
72.
SteinmacherISilvaMAGGerosaMA, et al. (2015) A systematic literature review on the barriers faced by newcomers to open source software projects. Information and Software Technology59: 67–85.
VialG (2019) Reflections on quality requirements for digital trace data in IS research. Decision Support Systems126: 113133.
77.
Von KroghGHaefligerSSpaethS, et al. (2012) Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development. MIS Quarterly36(2): 649–676.
78.
VuongQH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica57(2): 307–333.
79.
WangXJiangMHanW, et al. (2022) Do emotions sell? The impact of emotional expressions on sales in the space-sharing economy. Production and Operations Management31(1): 65–82.
80.
WengQSohF (2023) The influence of project initiators’ person-to-person followership on project popularity in open source communities: The role of reach and importance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems32(2): 101771.
81.
XavierJMacedoAMaiaMDA (2014) Understanding the popularity of reporters and assignees in the GitHub. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering: 484–489.
82.
XiaoSHoYCCheH (2021) Building the momentum: Information disclosure and herding in online crowdfunding. Production and Operations Management30(9): 3213–3230.
Yetis LarssonZDi GangiPMTeiglandR (2019) Sharing my way to success: A case study on developing entrepreneurial ventures using social capital in an OSS community. Information and Organization29(1): 23–40.
85.
ZhangXWangTYuY, et al. (2022) Who, what, why and how? Towards the monetary incentive in crowd collaboration: A case study of Github’s sponsor mechanism. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1(1).
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
