Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Edits to the md file #3

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Edits to the md file #3

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
854bba0
Update introducing_depsy.md
Nov 10, 2015
3e8303b
Update introducing_depsy.md
Nov 10, 2015
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion introducing_depsy.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Heather Piwowar and Jason Priem

# Introduction

Today's cutting-edge science is built on an array of specialist research software. This research software is often as important as traditional scholarly papers--[but it's not treated that way when it comes to funding and tenure](http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/). There, the traditional publish-or-perish, show-me-the-Impact-Factor system still rules.
Today's cutting-edge science is built on an array of specialist research software. This research software is often as important as traditional scholarly papers; moreso, it is often *essential* to the realization of scholarly papers, as very few research today does not rely on any software whatsoever--[but it's not treated that way when it comes to funding and tenure](http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/). There, the traditional publish-or-perish, show-me-the-Impact-Factor system still rules.

We need to fix that. We need to provide meaningful incentives for the [scientist-developers](http://dirkgorissen.com/2012/03/26/the-researcher-programmer-a-new-species/) who make important research software, so that we can keep doing important, software-driven science.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Given that, it's not a question of *if* research software becomes a first-class
+ James Howison's work is a good start
+ Dan Katz' work about transitive credit (Dan is happy to help - let him know what you want from him)
+ Another question is what to count - see https://danielskatzblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/software-metrics-what-to-count-and-how/ For example, Dan thinks it's important to count actual usage more than downloads, though this can be orthogonal to reuse.
+ [This paper in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution](http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/article/view/5644) and [thoughtfull commentary](http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/article/view/5745) by Ethan White.

## Coverage

Expand All @@ -54,6 +55,7 @@ R is a language for doing statistics. As such, almost all of its packages are w

Python is a more general purpose programming language. We try to establish whether a given Python package is research software by searching its metadata (package name, description, tags) for researchy-words (see [code on GitHub](https://github.com/Impactstory/depsy/blob/870c85ee4598643f496bca76e5a7dff994e53837/models/academic.py)). We cover all *57243* active Python packages on [PyPI](http://pypi.python.org), Python's main package repository; of those, we count *4166* as research software.

Most of [Julia](http://pkg.julialang.org/) packages are for (numerical) research. They give good usage statistics.

## Package impact

Expand Down