[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tasks overview wishlist: Canonical citing reference


I like the idea. It makes software look more seriouse. Could happen that your 
software gets citations on sites like citeseerx.ist.psu.edu if used 
consequently :-)


Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2008 schrieb Michael Banck:
> Hi,
> One thing I'd like to have added to the nice package overviews at
> http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/chemistry.html etc. is a
> canonical reference which should be given in scientific papers using
> that package.
> On the one hand, this is mandated by some (non-free) packages already,
> on the other hand, it is good scientific practise and would be nice to
> have better exposed and centrally available.
> E.g, for mpqc, this would be (see http://www.mpqc.org/pub.php)
> "The Massively Parallel Quantum Chemistry Program (MPQC), Version
> 2.3.1, Curtis L. Janssen, Ida B. Nielsen, Matt L. Leininger, Edward F.
> Valeev, Joseph P. Kenny, Edward T. Seidl, Sandia National Laboratories,
> Livermore, CA, USA, 2008"
> I don't think this belongs into the package description, but maybe as a
> X-* field in debian/control post-lenny.  For lenny, we could add a
> field/comment in some svn repository (not sure from what sources those
> nice overviews are generated).
> Also, having this would sense a clear signal to upstream authors that we
> consider proper citing important and that enforcing citations in
> copyright licensing is not the best thing to do.
> A second thing would be to optionally add the DOI (or maybe the full
> reference, not sure) of one or a couple (not too many, obviously) papers
> describing the package, if there is any.  Sometimes, this might be the
> same reference as the canonical citing reference, but usually not.  The
> DOIs could then be written as http://dx.doi.org/<DOI> links for easy
> access (though I'm not sure what to write as link text, maybe the
> reference text as would be given in a paper)
> Again, for MPQC, this would be
> DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/46/1/031, DOI:10.1002/jcc.20815
> What do you think?
> Michael

Reply to: