[SciPy-Dev] SciPy 1.0 paper writing proposal

[Ralf Gommers]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Nelson <andyfaff at 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 at 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 at 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 at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SciPy-Dev mailing list
>> SciPy-Dev at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________
> Dr. Andrew Nelson
>
>
> _____________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20180122/440107f9/attachment-0001.html>