diazrenata
commented
2 years ago As long as I'm just playing with code/working up analysis, I'd go ahead and fork a repo to make any changes.
Things get a little bit different in the scenario where you're citing it for a manuscript. GitHub isn't ideal for citing in the scientific record, because it isn't completely permanent (one, it's owned by Microsoft :eyes: and two, the owner of a repo can delete or move it if they choose to). To cite code, ideally it'd have a permanent archive on a platform like FigShare or Zenodo, which would come with a DOI and permalink. Usually with code I've written I go ahead and make a Zenodo archive when I submit an ms. Since this might not be code you've written such that you feel like you "own" the intellectual rights there, I might reach out to the folks who did write the code and ask them how they'd like you to proceed (maybe they can post it to Zenodo, etc) :tada:
Really excited to put what knowledge I have and have gained through the video to use!
Recently I used code virtually unchanged from another project. I accessed it through another repository through Virginia Tech. Is "forking" the best way to go, even if I'm not changing it? I might one day if I want to expand the project. Otherwise, I'd just cite where it came from if it makes it into a manuscript, or does git hub also work as sort of a reference database to keep track of code I've used but haven't changed? I hope that made sense.
I appreciate the reassurance that it takes time and everything will be OK. I am hoping github is the kinda thing you have to use for a bit to really understand...