[SciPy-Dev] SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 171, Issue 19

[Antonio Ribeiro]

Hi all,

Just to understand it better. I have some contributions before v1.0:
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6404/commits/caa58db0a0695ec1cc0636ed85903449fef5d57a
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6919/commits/e0e7e55502fb6fa0142b2f173f8de6b73b254594

Should I have received a web form?

If it is the case, I should be happy to help writing about
"scipy.optimize", if the committee decide to include some section about it.

All the best,
Antônio

2018-01-20 19:03 GMT-02:00 <scipy-dev-request at python.org>:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:03:25 +1300
> From: Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
> To: SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev at python.org>
> Subject: [SciPy-Dev] SciPy 1.0 paper writing proposal
> Message-ID:
>         <CABL7CQi9Wa-JLyvqx4g15Kkj3pV0EuRijkNWV=wuK
> bzKpos3WQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/
> attachments/20180121/523826fe/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 171, Issue 19
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20180122/c9c1f3d5/attachment.html>