-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a CITATION.cff
file to make pyani
easier to cite
#317
Comments
I think it's already at least as easy to cite as any paper or other resource ;) My opinion is that the issue is largely cultural. A Egon Willinghagen notes an automated service for generating https://twitter.com/egonwillighagen/status/1420278201130049537 He also raises another point about software citations that isn't fixed by this technological solution: https://twitter.com/egonwillighagen/status/1420282690704715777?s=20 GitHub |
Maybe so, but when I'm trying to figure out how to cite software, my first stop is almost always the GitHub page, not to run the software. Now, someone else looked into this a bit more last night, and told me that apparently the |
If there's no other obvious information, I also will look at the GitHub page. I think that's natural for people familiar with GitHub. However, many of our users may not even know that GitHub exists - the software might be packaged up for them by a friendly local IT/bioinformatics person. We can't always rely on our own personal experience as a comprehensive guide. Everyone who uses the tool uses the tool. Not everyone who uses the tool uses GitHub. I've just had a play with You can see my attempt at ffd9ddb - it can point people to a paper (it includes the DOI), but it doesn't provide a ready-to-paste citation in the clipboard, the way people might want. My opinion is that the current implementation of this system at GitHub is currently less useful than a I do think it's a worthy step towards getting people used to citing software directly as a research output, rather than citing the paper that reports the software (a roundabout, brittle system). I still think that cultural change is required in biology at least for this approach to take hold. Right now, I'm not sure how to use this. It seems to make most sense to point the |
This takes me to the |
Maybe it takes time to catch up on the commit - I get APA/BibTeX copiable info, now:
and as the "View Citations File" takes me to an actual file describing how we'd like the tool cited, I'm happy with it. |
This is also what I see, but I wasn't sure if it was different to what you were seeing when you first tried it. I would say that resolves the issue, and it can be closed, unless you want to wait until |
I think we can close it now - #236 works but is going to need a health warning for large jobs that may overrun SLURM job limits on the cluster being used. |
Summary:
New thing I just saw here: https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1420122675813441540.
Have not looked into the details yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: