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.

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

Publishing: Determining what journals that publish software paper should provide to their reviewers #56

Open
danielskatz opened this issue Jul 17, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@danielskatz
Copy link
Collaborator

Determining what journals that publish software paper should provide to their reviewers (e.g., guidelines, mechanisms, metadata standards, etc.)

@npch
Copy link
Collaborator

npch commented Sep 28, 2015

A related question is whether journals should be providing tools like VM images / docker containers, or whether the entire review process should be moved upstream, whereby people planning to publish software papers get their development process audited by reviewers, rather than the software itself. This would be akin to preregistration of medical experiments.

@danielskatz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Kind of like the F1000 model?

@jameshowison
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this is an interesting idea, but I note that it would be taking
something that is currently "backstage" (to use Goffman's terms) and making
it "frontstage". As such it is fraught with image presentation problems
and would quite likely be accompanied by the development of another
"backstage". Studies looking at transparency of work processes often find
things like that, a system introduces auditability of work and employees
keep notes on paper first (or use a personal email server ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaturgy_(sociology)

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Neil Chue Hong [email protected]
wrote:

A related question is whether journals should be providing tools like VM
images / docker containers, or whether the entire review process should be
moved upstream, whereby people planning to publish software papers get
their development process audited by reviewers, rather than the software
itself. This would be akin to preregistration of medical experiments.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants