Re:DrWatson: A scientific project assistant in Julia
by kurikuri on Wednesday November 03, 2021 @07:14PM
(#29101749)
On the citation portion: please don’t ask for this… I’d like to think the bibliography of a paper is reserved to reference work related to the field, not tooling. Consider the situation where everyone cited bibTeX and Zotero.
Maybe I’m seeming unappreciative about this tool, and, if so, I apologize.
Re:DrWatson: A scientific project assistant in Julia
by a_bonobo on Thursday November 04, 2021 @12:03AM
(#29103584)
Please cite the papers for the tools you're using. Impact is main thing scientists are judged for in job and grant applications, and that is usually measured using the number of citations.
If you'd stop citing papers for tools you'd stop academic software development.
Re:DrWatson: A scientific project assistant in Julia
by oxinabox on Thursday November 04, 2021 @02:38PM
(#29110932)
This is amazingly field dependent.
I am from a field where you only cite the most significant tools you use (Machine Learning).
E.g. "We implemented this with a neural network build with TensorFlow (cite). We augmented the data using skew tranforms from Augumentor.jl"
But the convention of other fields is to recursively cite all software that is loaded by your experimental code.
And is strictly required by their journals.
and I am not one to tell other fields what their conventions should be.
Especially not when they give more credit.
Re:DrWatson: A scientific project assistant in Julia
by 22c on Wednesday November 03, 2021 @09:33PM
(#29102725)
There seems to be a bit of an overlap with software that is written by academics and asking for citation.
I am vaguely remembering one of the awk* variants (or something like that) does something similar every time you have to run it, unless ran with some command-line switch (*may not have been awk).
Re:DrWatson: A scientific project assistant in Julia
by goerz on Wednesday November 03, 2021 @07:25PM
(#29101855)
Yeah, I’d only cite it if it was a critical part of the methodology for a particular paper, or in a didactic field. It’s good for them to have a citable paper, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Watson_(debugger)
Maybe I’m seeming unappreciative about this tool, and, if so, I apologize.
If you'd stop citing papers for tools you'd stop academic software development.
But the convention of other fields is to recursively cite all software that is loaded by your experimental code. And is strictly required by their journals.
and I am not one to tell other fields what their conventions should be. Especially not when they give more credit.
I am vaguely remembering one of the awk* variants (or something like that) does something similar every time you have to run it, unless ran with some command-line switch (*may not have been awk).