[Biopython] Biopython Digest, Vol 156, Issue 19

[Tiago Antao]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:47 +0100
Ivan Erill <ivan.erill at gmail.com> wrote:
> That requires analyzing whether there is substantial new stuff to
> warrant a new publication and whether the new pub could make it to a
> journal of at least similar impact. Having an old (2009!) but highly
> cited publication is good, but may backfire if people/funders
> perceive there has been no (citable) progress in the area. Being able
> to cite extensions (e.g. BioPhylo) helps address that problem and
> enticing extension developers to publish, rather than publishing
> updates of Biopython, might be the way to go. Then again, most major
> projects in bioinformatics (e.g. GO, RefSeq, RegulonDB, STRING,
> eggNOG...) publish frequent updates, so why not Biopython? Having
> several Biopython papers might dilute the citation count, but you can
> then state that there have been X biopython publications, so it's a
> tradeoff, as usual.


I think there is a severe issue of fairness here: there are quite a few
people that contributed a lot and are profiting nothing from the
project. It would be only fair that they could have a citable paper.

Of course, deciding on the author list and ordering is a massive can of
worms... The only thing we know is that Peter would be first (and
second and third ;) ).


-- 
"While I may be sending this email outside my normal office hours, I
have no expectation to receive a reply outside yours" - @tomstafford