patnr
commented
3 years ago This is an important point, so much so that suggested citation methods are now given at the top of the README. It says "If you use it in a publication, please cite, e.g., 'The experiments used (inspiration from) DAPPER [ref], version 1.2.1', where [ref] points to Zenodo/DOI.
I think this is good enough for the issue of versioning (one could even refer to git hashes). But yes, the Zenodo reference is not very clean. A much better solution would be publishing the docs in some way, similar to e.g.:
- https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02597
- https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1233
- https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/5/4/225
One drawback (also with Zenodo) is that the author list cannot change.
I see pdoc3 has a "--pdf" flag, but not a "--tex" or "--md" flag, so I'm not sure what's the best way to do it.
Zenodo initially looks like a good way for the citation in the paper as it has a proper DOI, but it can render something a bit weird from bibtex.
I'm thinking about alternative ways to refer to DAPPER especially considering that the structure of DAPPER changes among versions, which may cause a problem without specifying the version of DAPPER in publications.
It might be good to suggest a way of citation for publications using it.