Hi All, I'm moving the discussion of the paper to the mailing list, as requested by Stefan. Here's a summary of the points so far: * Josh brought up a Computational Science and Discovery special issue as not only a possible venue for the paper but a general renewed call to action about this paper. * I vetoed the CSD special issue, despite having no formal power of veto =P, and suggested we opt instead for a fully open access journal, such as F1000Research. * This and Johannes's email sparked a discussion about possible homes for it. Current suggestions: - F1000 Research - JMLR MLOSS [sklearn published here] - Journal of Open Research Software [mahotas published here] - Image Processing On Line (ipol.im) - Journal on Image and Video Processing (jivp.eurasipjournals.com) * Stefan suggested as the author list, "currently active core contributors", but would certainly add more authors that have "made a substantial contribution to the package." I feel the same way and I imagine other current core devs would not object to this either. (?) * There is a markdown template PR here: https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image-paper/pull/2 Johannes gave a +1 to merging that, and I give another, so that makes +2, I'll merge following this email. =) (I have a question about this point: for managing LaTeX papers on git, I have usually stuck to the convention of "1 sentence: 1 line". Do we want this for this paper, or wrap at 72 characters, or something else?) I think that's everything, though I'm sure the discussion will continue! Stefan asked me to elaborate on my suggestion of F1000. I must admit I don't know much about the other journals on the list, and would need to look into them. Things that I *expect* from our eventual home are: - open access. - CC or similar licensing that allows text mining applications. Further niceties offered by F1000Res: - papers published immediately as preprint. - open peer review - once two reviewers have signed off on the paper, it is considered "peer reviewed". Reviewers can request modifications, and full paper and revision history is maintained. - peer reviewed articles are indexed by PubMed. Essentially, the review model is quite similar to the GitHub PR process, which sounds great to me. PeerJ offers a similar (identical?) model, but is currently not LaTeX friendly, which pretty much rules it out for this. Juan.