> I don't believe "scientific code" is fundamentally different from any other code, I would go with following normal development practices
> 1) review design ("don't reinvent wheel")
> 2) add tests
> 3) make code review
> 4) version control
> etc.
In my experience, this is pretty quixotic and will lead to your failure as a scientist. Basically nobody is writing tests. Code review is pretty much unheard of. There only "design review" comes from your journal's peer review process and generally has nothing to with the code. You can jump through all those hoops while your colleagues keep cranking out papers.