[Biopython] DOI for BioPython

[Ivan Erill]

Came across this
<http://www.nature.com/news/the-unsung-heroes-of-scientific-software-1.19100>
today; seemed pretty relevant to the topic at hand:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-unsung-heroes-of-scientific-software-1.19100

Ivan

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Tiago Antao <tra at popgen.net> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython/attachments/20160108/53aeb88d/attachment.html>