<div dir="ltr">Sounds good -- I'd be up for committee work. Definitely +1 on a paper for time justification, etc.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 January 2018 at 14:03, Ralf Gommers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ralf.gommers@gmail.com" target="_blank">ralf.gommers@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hi all,<br><br>TL;DR, let's write the long journal paper on SciPy that we've wanted for a while, let's form a small committee to coordinate, and get it out the door in 2-3 months.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br>Motivation<br>---------------<br></div><div>(credits for most of this text: Evgeni)</div><div><br></div><div>Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in<br>
refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main<br>
performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not<br>
generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a<br>
contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a<br>
contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their<br>
superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue<br>
altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be<br>
checked, and scipy contributions simply do not fit in. A peer-reviewed journal paper on scipy will help contributors get the academic credit they deserve.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>We can write *the* paper for SciPy 1.0, with overall project structure, goals, etc., and for specific features/modules a focus on say the last 3 years.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br>History<br>----------</div><div>For SciPy 1.0 we had three targets on the publicity/credits front: an interesting release announcement, interesting blogs/stories (NumFOCUS blog, Hacker News, etc.) and a paper. We didn't have the bandwidth for a paper in the end, the rest was successful.<br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] is a previous announcement on this list about writing (a) paper(s) on SciPy. We wanted both "short papers" to cover one or two releases (target journal JOSS) and a full paper as the authoritative reference for SciPy.<br></div><div><br></div><div>We had an earlier attempt for a "short paper", it's mostly written but has stalled (see [2]). We ran out of steam on that one. To avoid that this time around, it would be good to have a clear public plan, target dates, and a small committee rather than one person to drive things forward.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Proposal</div><div>------------</div><div>Here's a proposal for all aspects of this exercise that I can think about now. Some parts stolen from the AstroPy paper [3] (because their process worked quite well).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Form a small coordination committee of 3-5 people that set up the paper structure, move things along when parts stall, propose/take decisions as needed, invite co-authors, and organise paper submission/rework.</div><div><br></div><div>Paper writing to be done by whoever volunteers for a section, not just the coordination committee. First outline/structure to be done by committee, which then asks for review of structure and volunteers for section writing.</div><div><br></div><div>Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Authorship: anyone who made a substantial contribution in the history of the project. Here "substantial" is
interpreted as anything beyond a one-line doc fix. Rationale: better to be too inclusive than exclusive. Sign-up via a web form, we send the link to that form to all email addresses in the commit history till v1.0. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Author order (details tbd by committee): <br></div><div>1. The SciPy Developers</div><div>2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level</div><div>3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered<br></div><div><br></div><div>Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Comments? Volunteers for committee?<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>References</div><div>----------------<br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/<wbr>pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-<wbr>August/021474.html</a><br>[2] <a href="https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4" target="_blank">https://github.com/scipy/<wbr>scipy-articles/pull/4</a><br>[3] <a href="https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper" target="_blank">https://github.com/astropy/<wbr>astropy-v2.0-paper</a><br><br></div>Cheers,<br></div>Ralf<br><br><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
SciPy-Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:SciPy-Dev@python.org">SciPy-Dev@python.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>