Conversation
|
I think I've addressed everyone's comments. Please have a second look and merge if ready. |
butlerpd
left a comment
butlerpd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this can be merged. The comment on the final acknowledgment is relatively trivial and maybe we can wait till somebody comes up with better verbiage than I.
I do however have another suggestions, also probably for the future. Basically I'm thinking of adding incentives rather than asking for extra work. (more carrot and less stick)
As new versions of each package are released, calculation methods may change or be corrected.
To account for these calculation differences, please cite the version or versions you used to analyze your data.
I think we could point out that accounting for this differences would be critical for reproducibility which in principle is something the user is interested in (or feels they must do somehow). So .... we are providing a way to make it easy for them :-)
cite.md
Outdated
| If you would like to acknowledge SasView, please include the following: | ||
| If you would like to acknowledge the use of one or more SasView software packages, please include the following: | ||
|
|
||
| > _This work benefited from the use of the SasView application, originally developed under NSF award DMR-0520547. SasView contains code developed with funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the SINE2020 project, grant agreement No 654000._ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given the way we have split off packages I think it would be more appropriate to say something like:
This work benefited from the use of the SasView project, originally developed under NSF award DMR-0520547 and containing code developed with funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the SINE2020 project, grant agreement No 654000.
basically using sasmodels or sasdata is different from the SasView application I guess (by that I think most people would understand the GUI app?) but the code in all of these originates form the same point ... and to some extent probably also has some fingerprints of sine2020 .. .at least in sasdata. So being broad makes more sense to me?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This existing wording mirrors what is in the SasView code-base. Would it make sense to change it there as well? I could include the change as part of SasView/sasview#3918.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah that would make sense to me. That wording was developed long ago before even sasmodels existed technically though the addition of the sine2020 was after that but still not used that much in scripting. Probably time to upgrade that to reflect all the changes that have happened :-). Certainly that is a way to merge this without losing that change.
|
Suggested change to the citation works for me. |
|
I think this should be merged now. This can easily be updated at any time. |
4 participants
This updates our citation site with information on citing and/or acknowledging sasmodels and sasdata.