[Biopython] DOI for BioPython

[Tiago Antao]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:38:37 +0000
João Rodrigues <j.p.g.l.m.rodrigues at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

One can discuss if it is good or bad, but basic pragmatism dictates
that the proper citing object is the 2009 paper, period. This for the
reasons stated here by others already. Myself I would not be able to
have contributed over the years if there was not a high-cited paper to
put forward as a justification.

Having another (non-paper) citing object will damage the project and
has my full frontal objection. Things in science work as they work, and
while I might object to paper citation metrics, that is the
world we live in. I believe Biopython already lives too much on the
volunteering of a few individuals, removing the only thing that
provides "income" would be fatal. We actually need more (not less)
forms of "income".

That being said, and at the risk of opening a can of worms, I find it
very unfair that many people that have recently contributed hard to the
project are not on the author list of the 2009 paper (you, for
example. Bow is another). That would be fixed with a new paper. Deciding
on the author list would be the can of worms. We all can agree that it
would be another Cock et al paper, but getting the list of people that
are the "et al" would be complex.

Tiago