[Biopython] DOI for BioPython

[João Rodrigues]

*per-release

A qua, 23/12/2015, 02:38, João Rodrigues <j.p.g.l.m.rodrigues at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> Since this is a python library I'd go with the mantra of there is only one
> way to do things, thus, one citation to keep things simple :)
>
> More seriously, I'd be much happier with a convention where you'd cite the
> major biopython paper, the specific module papers if there are any, and
> include the hash of the revision you used. This should be included in the
> wiki page where we define 'citation guidelines'. It is simple, helps
> everyone (although occasional contributors might feel robbed), and is fully
> reproducible.
>
> Including DOIs for every release is only partially reproducible, since it
> relies on a third party service to map between the DOI and the release,
> which adds an unnecessary, in my opinion, extra layer of complexity. Also,
> it doesn't help those that do not know biopython to learn about it since
> they will have to Google it's publication.
>
> It's a good discussion and a good point to raise, but there are still
> major rules in science we have to play by in order to keep people
> interested and generally move forward.
>
> As Tiago, I'm also against implementing pre-release DOIs. It'll create too
> much entropy that has no real benefits other than ideology.
>
> A qua, 23/12/2015, 01:03, Tiago Antao <tra at popgen.net> escreveu:
>
>> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython/attachments/20151223/0dfa774e/attachment.html>