owned this note   changed 5 years ago  
Published Linked with GitHub

pyOpenSci Meeting Notes - 6 Feb 2020

Attendees

  • Leah Wasser (Earth Lab, CU Boulder)
  • Jenny Palomino (Earth Lab, CU Boulder)
  • Daniel Chen (Virginia Tech)
  • Dave Nicholson

Agenda

CZI Sumbission is in - phew! Feb 4

Asks - 1 year

  • Time from me, jenny and lauren split to really move the project forward.
  • Travel for us all (10 trips) to promote pyopensci at meetings. What meetings should we target over the next year?
    *
  • Funds for an unconference hosted here in boulder. 20 of us can travel here. (NOTE: i noticed in the submission that it won't cover trips to the USA. i'm going to try to understand that a bit more clearly and figure out a way to support people abroad attending) This is ofcourse IF we get this award which is a roll of the dice!!
  • Is it safe to share proposals? i just don't know how others do it. like the carpentries? i love sharing everything just want to better understand how we can do it in a way that allows us to grow and allows the organization and the community to own the project.

If we DON"T get this funding we will go for the next round OR we will move on to SLOAN!

Conferences

Recap from Agu (a bit delayed but better late than never)

Software Review Updates!

New Submissions

Outstanding pre submission

In Review

JOSS updates

  • We should update our documentation to better reflect how things work with joss
  • If we get funding i'd also like to really dig into the dev guide as I think it could use a lot of work!
  • Joss prefers that those who submit to not submit to joss if their tool is already published. Here are some guidelines that arfon provided to me:

Generally speaking, if there's already a preferred citation (i.e. an existing paper) for the software then we wouldn't recommend the authors submit to JOSS.

In addition, if there is already a paper about the software (i.e. not just about results derived using the software) then we might not allow a JOSS submission. The rationale here being that this could be considered self-plagiarism (multiple papers about the same thing). So in summary, if a team wants to publish a paper in JOSS there are generally speaking three different scenarios:

  1. If there are existing paper(s) in literature that publish results using the software then a JOSS paper would be allowed.
  2. If there is an existing paper about the software and the software hasn't significantly evolved since the first paper then a JOSS paper would NOT be allowed.
  3. If there is an existing paper about the software and the software has hit a major new milestone (e.g. new major release) then a JOSS paper WOULD be allowed.

I think this covers most situations?

So while to the authors (and the software), could potentially benefit from the software review of JOSS in scenario #2 we wouldn't allow this because it would be considered a duplicate publication about the same software.

notes from dave

Should we reach out to tools that we think would fill gaps

  • zenodo wrapper – there is a tool already that we could reach out to
  • zenodo is focused on tool but will share the same api with dryad

PyOpenSci Badges

  • For pyopensci we only add the badge after it's passed the review. For rOpenSci they have a badge server that automates the badge as it moves through the review process…
  • Jenny will update the review template wording to make this clear (pyOpenSci badge provided after acceptance)

Adjust discourse forum settings -

Select a repo