jfy133
commented
2 years ago Can also link to https://nf-co.re/about or https://nf-co.re/community
if a journal requires a list of people
Open christopher-hakkaart opened 2 years ago
jfy133
commented
2 years ago Can also link to https://nf-co.re/about or https://nf-co.re/community
if a journal requires a list of people
lescai
commented
2 years ago I believe nf-core community as a co-author could be the best solution. In any pipeline there are for sure 2 critical contributions: the core team, which makes things possible, and those who authored the modules used by the pipeline, besides the pipeline authors. it is a little difficult however to select those every time, and catching everyone as collective author is perhaps easier. I'd be happy with "nf-core community" to be a requirement, plus each manuscript should be encouraged to list as co-authors those specific people who contributed most (example, like above here). something however we should ask the community to do, is maintain their info (full name and affiliations): some journals require / allow collective authorships to be spelled out either in supplementary or at the end of the manuscript, and in some cases those are also recorded in PubMed indexing. Having that information available should it be needed and without asking every time would be important for this to work. in our example, acknowledging all authors of modules we used, I wasn't able to find the full name of everyone because not everyone as filled their GitHub profile :)
ewels
Write guidelines for authorship
Publications currently acknowledge only main authors of pipeline, but not nf-core community. What about adding “nf-core community” to the list of co-authors. Who should be listed there? Active contributors?:
Who should be in there: Anyone who has made a commit in tools, website, respective pipeline, used modules, ? Example: bioconda publication https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-018-0046-7