Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Credit for open source software development in academia #33

Open
mpacer opened this issue Apr 10, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

Credit for open source software development in academia #33

mpacer opened this issue Apr 10, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@mpacer
Copy link
Contributor

mpacer commented Apr 10, 2018

Discussion topic:
Credit for open source software development in academia

Brief description of issue/challenge:
Academia gives credit for citations easily. Traditionally, it is hard to get software to be cited even by the researchers who use the software. We have made some progress in providing ways for software to become citable (JOSS and the SciPy Proceedings are two example models). However, there remain problems. The practice of citing software still is not widespread. Perhaps more concerning is that the unit of work in academia is fairly different from that in open source software. It would not make sense to cite a Pull Request, or to publish a new citable object for each new version of a software package.

Lead/moderator:
M Pacer?

Links to resources:

@teuben
Copy link
Contributor

teuben commented Apr 10, 2018

ASCL (ascl.net) is a repository of astronomical software, that feeds directly into ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/) which gives credit for software using their automated metrics. This is an example of how it works now, but we can think of better ways once the journals have a more formal connection of data and software, parallel to the paper. ApJ (AAS.org) now tried to do this.

@abbycabs
Copy link

Related to Mozilla's work on contributorship badges for science: https://science.mozilla.org/blog/contributorship-badges-for-science-view-them-now

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link
Contributor

Group 1's discussion on Tuesday morning: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SYtRpcht7sdtgPak5OLQmpo5ml92EtMt2fzOmTg4jZI/edit

@kyleniemeyer
Copy link
Contributor

Relevant article on assessing scientists for promotion and tenure (mentions software once or twice): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089

@mpacer
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpacer commented Apr 11, 2018

I created #48 to have a separate venue for discussing the non-(paper+citation) based metrics for research software since that wasn’t the focus of yesterday’s convo, but was agreed to be an important topic worth discussing (especially with @karthik’s suggestion for URSSI labs to research this).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants