PeerJ

Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please enable Javascript to view PeerJ.

Software citation principles

View article

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 717 days ago

@DanielBolnick @ASNAmNat Do you already support software citation? This has overlapping requirements. See https://t.co/GZE0jI7onh for principles and https://t.co/SJ3svejddZ for publisher guidance, and https://t.co/GDo2O26DJW for what other publishers are now doing

repost on X like

Jodi Schneider @jschneider 721 days ago

Good practices in: Software Citation Principles (@danielskatz & colleagues) https://t.co/1Aqd0YrWM3 via @PeerJCompSci https://t.co/7zi13kzT7i

repost on X like

Ludo Waltman @LudoWaltman 780 days ago

RT @danielskatz: @LudoWaltman @science_octopus I seem to often repost "It is not that academic software needs a separate credit system fro…

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 780 days ago

@LudoWaltman @science_octopus I seem to often repost "It is not that academic software needs a separate credit system from that of academic papers, but that the need for credit for research software underscores the need to overhaul the system of credit for all research products." -- https://t.co/GZE0jI7onh https://t.co/ASPHuOQsFL

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 847 days ago

When we were writing the first version of the Software Citation Principles paper (now published as https://t.co/GZE0jI7onh), we wanted to justify why we needed software citation principles, given that data citation principles already existed 2/x

repost on X like

Stephan Druskat @stdruskat 906 days ago

@cjmuise @nicholdav @gvwilson @arfon @roberthaines77 That's correct. There are some underlying assumptions regarding this, most coming directly from https://t.co/beDjJwNpdb. The main one is: the *software* is the research output (in the repo), the papers using/describing it are 1+ 'steps' removed in the citation graph. 1/n

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 907 days ago

@ReaderMeter @arfon @npch @mfenner Software Citation Principles say cite what you directly use. See derived software heading in https://t.co/GZE0jHPMYH

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 960 days ago

@martateperek @AkhmerovAnton @npch @rdicosmo @rachaelevelyn @matkuzak @CryanAshley @StephenEglen not really beyond the scope of the Software Citation Principles... What to cite is in https://t.co/GZE0jI7onh in https://t.co/2M6D6GRQ2h and https://t.co/faRDvRpxPP - it's basically what you directly use.

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 960 days ago

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 960 days ago

repost on X like

Stephan Druskat @stdruskat 1017 days ago

@bigreddot @DocFast @natfriedman Version/release date is supposed to be updated in the (single) CFF file whenever necessary (CI can do the heavy lifting). Also, CFF version 1.2.0 will relax the schema regarding this for usability, but it is still recommended practice (https://t.co/beDjJwNpdb).

repost on X like

Michael Ekstrand @mdekstrand 1017 days ago

@github I think it's a really good thing that GitHub is working to make software citation easier! And the Software Citation Principles (https://t.co/EHBqJvwvhk) backing the CFF effort have a lot of good ideas. But we also have existing practice, and I'd like to see that supported too.

repost on X like

Stephan Druskat @stdruskat 1017 days ago

@AcerbiLuigi @natfriedman @fxcoudert According to the principles (https://t.co/beDjJwNpdb) the software itself should be cited when used (also papers aren't good w/ reproducibility, e.g. when another (newer) version was used), but in CFF 1.2.0 (coming soon), you will be able to add a paper citation as "preferred".

repost on X like

Matthew Feickert @HEPfeickert 1017 days ago

@choldgraf @yoyehudi Yeah, I was suprised by this choice of format too. After a search I found the Zenodo archive for the CFF format proposal https://t.co/zO26VtVeUn but that's about it. Interesting that they cite https://t.co/mv22EH88ov immediately though, so seems this might have always been a goal

repost on X like

Daniel S. Katz @danielskatz 1018 days ago

@fxcoudert @natfriedman Sorry, but while I understand what you are saying, the intention here is to make software curable. See https://t.co/GZE0jI7onh

repost on X like

Stephan Druskat @stdruskat 1018 days ago

@NicolasTessore E.g., by going to CodeMeta (for archive metadata). The main difference between BibTeX and CFF, however, is that CFF is tailored to fit the needs of software citation specifically, which has certain requirements (see https://t.co/beDjJwNpdb).

repost on X like

Stephan Druskat @stdruskat 1018 days ago

@NicolasTessore Well, if BibTeX supported the metadata that you need for software citation (see https://t.co/beDjJwNpdb), e.g., version, that would really be a no-brainer. Alas, it doesn't (@ software is a simple alias for @ misc). (Version is important for reproducibility for example.)

repost on X like