My advice comes from being a developer, and tech lead, who has brought a lot of code from scientists to production.

The best path for a company is often: do not use the code the scientist wrote and instead have a different team rewrite the system for production. I've seen plenty of projects fail, hard, because some scientist thought their research code is production level. There is a large gap between research code and production. Anybody who claims otherwise is naive.

This is entirely fine! Even better than attempting to build production quality code from the start. Really! Research is solving a decision problem. That answer is important; less so the code.

However, science is science. Being able to reproduce the results the research produced is essential. So there is the standard requirement of documenting the procedure used (which includes the code!) sufficiently to be reproduced. The best part is the reproduction not only confirms the science but produces a production system at the same time! Awws yea. Science!

I've seen several projects fail when scientists attempt to be production developers without proper training and skills. This is bad for the team, product, and company.

(Tho typically those "scientists" fail to at building reproducible systems. So are they actually scientists? I've encountered plenty of phds in name only. )

So, what are your goals? To build production systems? Then those skills will have to be learned. That likely includes OO. Version control. Structural and behavioral patterns.

Not necessary to learn if that isn't your goal! Just keep in mind that if a resilient production system is the goal, well, research code is like the first pancake in a batch. Verify, taste, but don't serve it to customers.