Conversation
| publisher={Springer} | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @software{richard_gowers_2025_16898488, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure about that one - I think I would prefer just having the key paper, thought?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for all other packages, we have the software citation only. (see kartograf)
I think we should choose a convention and stick with it everywhere. I think I prefer having both - one citation that includes the software and its version, another that cites the paper. However, we haven't been keeping the software citation entries up to date with the software version.
Thoughts? Pinging @mikemhenry for input.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like having both since then people doing the citing can choose what they want to do, they might have some restriction(s) on what they can cite so having code + paper is nice. Like paper is good for giving context for a reader, but zenodo is good for reproducibility since they can then cite the version they used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The issue with the zenodo one is that it effectively needs regular updates to keep the author list up to date. Even if you use the DOI that defines all the versions.
Personally I would prefer not to have that maintenance burden.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean the zenodo software DOI?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the zenodo entry in the bib file has a bunch of authors - every time there's a new author, that author list should be updated. But that doesn't happen automatically in the bib file, so you have to deal with the maintenance burden of updating it every time there's a new release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That list should just be appending, at least for this package I can't imagine us getting more authors on that list. We can add to our checklists "I've added myself to the citation file" so then it happens in the PR and doesn't turn into this annoying "time to track all the authors down" at release time. Like this https://github.com/glotzerlab/signac/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That list should be appending
I believe this is incorrect. The list is both appending and re-ordering, because it's not the traditional CFF format, zenodo does not attempt to read from this file, so it will auto define order, etc...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a conversation I think we should have at an org level, and so shouldn't block this PR. I'm in favor of keeping both entries until then.
Open issue here: OpenFreeEnergy/openfe#2015
|
Follow-up issue to revisit once we've made a decision on what to do for zenodo: #167 |
3 participants
Fixes #11