[Biopython] DOI for BioPython

[João Rodrigues]

Having all citations concentrated in one paper with all the major
contributors helps tracking citation data, which helps those major
contributors and OBF in future funding ventures. Further, a new release
does not change the entire code base, so if you were to use Bio.PDB in say
release X and Y, where there weren't any changes to this module, you'd cite
two different DOIs, which wouldn't make any sense from any point of view.

Also, Peter's paper is not *his* paper about the software. It's the entire
team, or almost, on that paper and it describes the different modules and
their purpose and functionality.

What's better: citing the paper that describes the algorithm(s) or the pull
request that fixed a typo in the documentation?

Cheers,

João

A ter, 22/12/2015, 16:05,  <c.buhtz at posteo.jp> escreveu:

> On 2015-12-22 15:10 Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > You can just say Biopython version 1.66 (for example) and
> > cite the paper Cock et al 2009 and its DOI:
>
> I need to cite the software not your paper about the software.
> It is unscientific to do it like that. And somebody could say I just
> want to say "thank you" in the way to increase your ImpfactFactor.
>
> If there is no DOI I will just name the main website an the release
> identifier (version number).
>
> > Using Zenodo.org we'd have to register a DOI for each
> > release, which does not seem that useful.
>
> Exactly that would be useful and what DOIs are for - especially for a
> scientific software like BioPython.
> --
> GnuPGP-Key ID 0751A8EC
> _______________________________________________
> Biopython mailing list  -  Biopython at mailman.open-bio.org
> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython/attachments/20151222/6011b003/attachment-0001.html>