SciPy 1.0 paper writing proposal
Hi all, 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. Motivation --------------- (credits for most of this text: Evgeni) Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be 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. 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. History ---------- 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. [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. 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. Proposal ------------ 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). 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. 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. Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap. 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. Author order (details tbd by committee): 1. The SciPy Developers 2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level 3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee). Comments? Volunteers for committee? References ---------------- [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html [2] https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4 [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper Cheers, Ralf
Sounds good -- I'd be up for committee work. Definitely +1 on a paper for time justification, etc. On 20 January 2018 at 14:03, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
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.
Motivation --------------- (credits for most of this text: Evgeni)
Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be 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.
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.
History ---------- 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.
[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.
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.
Proposal ------------ 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).
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.
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.
Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap.
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.
Author order (details tbd by committee): 1. The SciPy Developers 2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level 3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered
Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee).
Comments? Volunteers for committee?
References ---------------- [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html [2] https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4 [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
I'm obviously up for being on the paper :-), but I'd prefer to contribute by writing small sections/editing of a paper rather than coordinating. On 21 January 2018 at 14:08, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good -- I'd be up for committee work. Definitely +1 on a paper for time justification, etc.
On 20 January 2018 at 14:03, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
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.
Motivation --------------- (credits for most of this text: Evgeni)
Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be 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.
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.
History ---------- 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.
[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.
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.
Proposal ------------ 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).
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.
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.
Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap.
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.
Author order (details tbd by committee): 1. The SciPy Developers 2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level 3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered
Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee).
Comments? Volunteers for committee?
References ---------------- [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html [2] https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4 [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- _____________________________________ Dr. Andrew Nelson _____________________________________
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm obviously up for being on the paper :-), but I'd prefer to contribute by writing small sections/editing of a paper rather than coordinating.
No worries, help of any kind is welcome, and no obligations of course.
On 21 January 2018 at 14:08, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good -- I'd be up for committee work. Definitely +1 on a paper for time justification, etc.
Thanks Tyler! Ralf
On 20 January 2018 at 14:03, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
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.
Motivation --------------- (credits for most of this text: Evgeni)
Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be 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.
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.
History ---------- 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.
[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.
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.
Proposal ------------ 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).
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.
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.
Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap.
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.
Author order (details tbd by committee): 1. The SciPy Developers 2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level 3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered
Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee).
Comments? Volunteers for committee?
References ---------------- [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html [2] https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4 [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- _____________________________________ Dr. Andrew Nelson
_____________________________________
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm obviously up for being on the paper :-), but I'd prefer to contribute by writing small sections/editing of a paper rather than coordinating.
No worries, help of any kind is welcome, and no obligations of course.
On 21 January 2018 at 14:08, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good -- I'd be up for committee work. Definitely +1 on a paper for time justification, etc.
Thanks Tyler!
Ralf
On 20 January 2018 at 14:03, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
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.
Motivation --------------- (credits for most of this text: Evgeni)
Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be 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.
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.
History ---------- 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.
[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.
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.
Proposal ------------ 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).
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.
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.
Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap.
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.
Author order (details tbd by committee): 1. The SciPy Developers 2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level 3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered
Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee).
Comments? Volunteers for committee?
References ---------------- [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html [2] https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4 [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- _____________________________________ Dr. Andrew Nelson
Thanks Ralf for pushing this forward! Count me in --- even though I have to publicly admit that I fell flat on my face on the previous attempt. Cheers, Evgeni
even though I have to publicly admit that I fell flat on my face on the previous attempt.
That doesn't seem fair to yourself; as I recall it the plan was to have a smaller paper that was more inclusive of all contributors, and it seemed that non-core people were modest about being included so it just didn't shake out. Regardless, I can help with committee stuff. - Josh On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Evgeni Burovski <evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nelson <andyfaff@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm obviously up for being on the paper :-), but I'd prefer to contribute by writing small sections/editing of a paper rather than coordinating.
No worries, help of any kind is welcome, and no obligations of course.
On 21 January 2018 at 14:08, Tyler Reddy <tyler.je.reddy@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good -- I'd be up for committee work. Definitely +1 on a paper for time justification, etc.
Thanks Tyler!
Ralf
On 20 January 2018 at 14:03, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
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.
Motivation --------------- (credits for most of this text: Evgeni)
Many scipy contributors' day jobs are in academia. Bibliometry -- papers in refereed journals and citations of papers by other papers -- is one of the main performance indicators in most academic establishments. Since we do not generate papers, scipy contributions are all but invisible for the purposes of a contributor's annual report. Of course, details vary wildly; in many cases a contributor manages to balance their time, or to argue common sense with their superiors, or get an approval for scipy work, or just ignores the issue altogether -- but sooner or later there is a form to be filled or boxes to be 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.
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.
History ---------- 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.
[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.
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.
Proposal ------------ 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).
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.
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.
Scope: a 6-10 page paper, covering history, package scope and structure, community/organisational aspects, key features and recent enhancements per module, and roadmap.
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.
Author order (details tbd by committee): 1. The SciPy Developers 2. Maintainers, paper writers, other key contributors - in order of contribution level 3. All other authors - alphabetically ordered
Submission target: mid-April, to either PeerJ Computer Science or Journal of Open Research Software (tbd by committee).
Comments? Volunteers for committee?
References ---------------- [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-August/021474.html [2] https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/4 [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy-v2.0-paper
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-- _____________________________________ Dr. Andrew Nelson
Thanks Ralf for pushing this forward! Count me in --- even though I have to publicly admit that I fell flat on my face on the previous attempt.
Cheers,
Evgeni _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:03:25 +1300, Ralf Gommers wrote:
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.
I'd love to see this realized. Count me in for planning the overall paper structure, organizing, and writing (perhaps the section on ndimage, in collaboration with Jaime, Juan, and others?). FWIW, when we wrote the scikit-image paper we borrowed the build tools from the SciPy Conference Proceedings, which allowed us to write in ReST (nice-looking GitHub diffs), and finally converting to LaTeX for the journal. At work, we've also been using Overleaf (online LaTeX editor) with good success (the Git commit log may not be as pretty, but it's very practical if you're willing to skip individual commit reviews). Best regards, Stéfan
I am (very) new here but happy to lend a helping hand with writing and coordination. Using something like Overleaf or Sharelatex is a great idea. best, Spiros On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Stefan van der Walt <stefanv@berkeley.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:03:25 +1300, Ralf Gommers wrote:
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.
I'd love to see this realized. Count me in for planning the overall paper structure, organizing, and writing (perhaps the section on ndimage, in collaboration with Jaime, Juan, and others?).
FWIW, when we wrote the scikit-image paper we borrowed the build tools from the SciPy Conference Proceedings, which allowed us to write in ReST (nice-looking GitHub diffs), and finally converting to LaTeX for the journal. At work, we've also been using Overleaf (online LaTeX editor) with good success (the Git commit log may not be as pretty, but it's very practical if you're willing to skip individual commit reviews).
Best regards, Stéfan
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Spiros Denaxas <s.denaxas@gmail.com> wrote:
I am (very) new here but happy to lend a helping hand with writing and coordination. Using something like Overleaf or Sharelatex is a great idea.
Hi Spiros, thank you for the offer. I cannot find any contribution from you in the commit history, so I'd like to leave you out of the coordination committee. Please ping me offline in case I missed your previous contributions. Cheers, Ralf
best, Spiros
Absolutely fine! best Spiros On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Spiros Denaxas <s.denaxas@gmail.com> wrote:
I am (very) new here but happy to lend a helping hand with writing and coordination. Using something like Overleaf or Sharelatex is a great idea.
Hi Spiros, thank you for the offer. I cannot find any contribution from you in the commit history, so I'd like to leave you out of the coordination committee. Please ping me offline in case I missed your previous contributions.
Cheers, Ralf
best, Spiros
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Stefan van der Walt <stefanv@berkeley.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:03:25 +1300, Ralf Gommers wrote:
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.
I'd love to see this realized. Count me in for planning the overall paper structure, organizing, and writing (perhaps the section on ndimage, in collaboration with Jaime, Juan, and others?).
Thanks Stefan, and thanks everyone else who volunteered. Looks like for coordinating we have the following team: Tyler, Josh, Evgeni, Matt, Stefan, Ralf. Let's start a bit of planning and setting up the structure of and build tools for the paper - I'll send out a separate email to you.
FWIW, when we wrote the scikit-image paper we borrowed the build tools from the SciPy Conference Proceedings, which allowed us to write in ReST (nice-looking GitHub diffs), and finally converting to LaTeX for the journal. At work, we've also been using Overleaf (online LaTeX editor) with good success (the Git commit log may not be as pretty, but it's very practical if you're willing to skip individual commit reviews).
Good ideas. Either way, we should borrow something rather than start from scratch. Let's decide which one in the coordination committee. Cheers, Ralf
Looks like for coordinating we have the following team: Tyler, Josh, Evgeni, Matt, Stefan, Ralf. Let's start a bit of planning and setting up the structure of and build tools for the paper - I'll send out a separate email to you.
Sorry for my delayed response -- I'm also happy to help coordinate and write, as necessary. If you need an extra hand let me know. Best, Eric
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:43:22AM -0500, Eric Larson wrote:
Looks like for coordinating we have the following team: Tyler, Josh, Evgeni, Matt, Stefan, Ralf. Let's start a bit of planning and setting up the structure of and build tools for the paper - I'll send out a separate email to you.
Sorry for my delayed response -- I'm also happy to help coordinate and write, as necessary. If you need an extra hand let me know.
Don't know if that's relevant, but if there's a section on native extension, and although I'm a newbie here, I'll be happy to participate.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:57:25 +0100, Serge Guelton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:43:22AM -0500, Eric Larson wrote:
Looks like for coordinating we have the following team: Tyler, Josh, Evgeni, Matt, Stefan, Ralf. Let's start a bit of planning and setting up the structure of and build tools for the paper - I'll send out a separate email to you.
Sorry for my delayed response -- I'm also happy to help coordinate and write, as necessary. If you need an extra hand let me know.
Don't know if that's relevant, but if there's a section on native extension, and although I'm a newbie here, I'll be happy to participate.
Extensions, and here I'm thinking interoperability with Cython, Numba, and C via LowLevelCallable, should certainly be considered for inclusion. But we'll need to do an outline of the paper first before knowing to what depth to drill down. Stéfan
Same as Eric also if you need some TeX stuff, I have a very broad and useless TeX experience. On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Serge Guelton < serge.guelton@telecom-bretagne.eu> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:43:22AM -0500, Eric Larson wrote:
Looks like for coordinating we have the following team: Tyler, Josh, Evgeni, Matt, Stefan, Ralf. Let's start a bit of planning and
setting up
the structure of and build tools for the paper - I'll send out a
separate
email to you.
Sorry for my delayed response -- I'm also happy to help coordinate and
write,
as necessary. If you need an extra hand let me know.
Don't know if that's relevant, but if there's a section on native extension, and although I'm a newbie here, I'll be happy to participate. _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
What updates are there on this? Ralf said mid-April was a submission target, but I haven’t seen anything yet. I’m more than happy to write some on my contribution. Scott On February 4, 2018 at 3:43:17 AM, Ralf Gommers (ralf.gommers@gmail.com) wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
Same as Eric also if you need some TeX stuff, I have a very broad and useless TeX experience.
Thanks Eric & Ilhan. I just sent the follow-up email to the coordinating volunteers. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Scott Sievert <sievert.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
What updates are there on this? Ralf said mid-April was a submission target, but I haven’t seen anything yet. I’m more than happy to write some on my contribution.
We've decided on the document outline ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/14) and the first section drafts have started to appear (thanks Tyler and Matt!): https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/13 https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/15 However you're right that we're a bit slow, mid-April finishing a first draft could still be feasibly if people start writing asap, but submission by then we won't make. https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/9 contains the sections and people who volunteered to author them. There's still some sections that need a volunteer; especially the technical sections could be written by people other than the main developer/maintainer - if you're confident you could (co-)write a section, feel free to comment there and jump in. Cheers, Ralf
Scott
On February 4, 2018 at 3:43:17 AM, Ralf Gommers (ralf.gommers@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
Same as Eric also if you need some TeX stuff, I have a very broad and useless TeX experience.
Thanks Eric & Ilhan. I just sent the follow-up email to the coordinating volunteers.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Scott Sievert <sievert.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
What updates are there on this? Ralf said mid-April was a submission target, but I haven’t seen anything yet. I’m more than happy to write some on my contribution.
We've decided on the document outline (https://github.com/scipy/ scipy-articles/pull/14) and the first section drafts have started to appear (thanks Tyler and Matt!): https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/13 https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/15
However you're right that we're a bit slow, mid-April finishing a first draft could still be feasibly if people start writing asap, but submission by then we won't make.
https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/9 contains the sections and people who volunteered to author them. There's still some sections that need a volunteer; especially the technical sections could be written by people other than the main developer/maintainer - if you're confident you could (co-)write a section, feel free to comment there and jump in.
Cheers, Ralf
I'll be able to help with writing on `stats` and `signal` (and possibly other areas, if needed). Warren Scott
On February 4, 2018 at 3:43:17 AM, Ralf Gommers (ralf.gommers@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
Same as Eric also if you need some TeX stuff, I have a very broad and useless TeX experience.
Thanks Eric & Ilhan. I just sent the follow-up email to the coordinating volunteers.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Just a reminder that the manuscript for SciPy 1.0 is starting to look more mature now and help with cleanup / improvement tasks is always appreciated. There's a checklist for some revisions ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/65 ), but maybe we don't need all of those depending on what people think. Some people have expressed concerns about the density of the manuscript, which was a somewhat unavoidable thing for a project of this size. We have well over double the normally-suggested citation limit for Scientific Reports, etc. May be ok in the end, depending on editorial decisions. Constructive suggestions for dealing with that (smart use of supporting information, etc.) are also welcome. Best wishes, Tyler On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 at 12:57, Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Scott Sievert <sievert.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
What updates are there on this? Ralf said mid-April was a submission target, but I haven’t seen anything yet. I’m more than happy to write some on my contribution.
We've decided on the document outline ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/14) and the first section drafts have started to appear (thanks Tyler and Matt!): https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/13 https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/pull/15
However you're right that we're a bit slow, mid-April finishing a first draft could still be feasibly if people start writing asap, but submission by then we won't make.
https://github.com/scipy/scipy-articles/issues/9 contains the sections and people who volunteered to author them. There's still some sections that need a volunteer; especially the technical sections could be written by people other than the main developer/maintainer - if you're confident you could (co-)write a section, feel free to comment there and jump in.
Cheers, Ralf
I'll be able to help with writing on `stats` and `signal` (and possibly other areas, if needed).
Warren
Scott
On February 4, 2018 at 3:43:17 AM, Ralf Gommers (ralf.gommers@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
Same as Eric also if you need some TeX stuff, I have a very broad and useless TeX experience.
Thanks Eric & Ilhan. I just sent the follow-up email to the coordinating volunteers.
Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
participants (12)
-
Andrew Nelson -
Eric Larson -
Evgeni Burovski -
Ilhan Polat -
Joshua Wilson -
Ralf Gommers -
Scott Sievert -
Serge Guelton -
Spiros Denaxas -
Stefan van der Walt -
Tyler Reddy -
Warren Weckesser