search

openjournals / paper-JOSS-oneyear

Paper describing design and first-year of JOSS
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
0 stars 0 forks source link

PeerJ R2C15 #22

Closed kyleniemeyer closed 6 years ago

kyleniemeyer commented 7 years ago

Section 7

The first paragraph mentions the career perspective of RSEs, but this cannot be the reason to set up JOSS. It is set up because software is an essential part of the research process, and therefore it should be properly evaluated and published such that it is findable, with a measure of quality and originality.

danielskatz commented 6 years ago

No, this reviewer doesn't understand that JOSS is not a journal that one reads. Making software findable is not a primary goal of JOSS, while career perspectives of developers is, along with quality. (But in my opinion, not originality. Software users don't care if software is original, just if it is effective and useful. If there are two large groups of users that use competing software packages that implement the same method, I would accept papers on both software packages.)

kyleniemeyer commented 6 years ago

Agreed. Perhaps we can add something to this part of the paper to clarify this.

kyleniemeyer commented 6 years ago

Here is my suggested response:

While we agree that software is an essential part of research, and thus should be evaluated and published, we disagree on the credit issue---our primary motivation in creating JOSS was in fact to provide credit to researchers who develop software (including RSEs, but applying beyond those as well). Thus, JOSS differs from traditional journals which evaluate originality and\slash or impact, although we do review for quality standards.

Furthermore, since JOSS is not designed as journal one reads, we do not primarily intend it to serve as a mechanism to find software. (Though we do plan to improve searching and tagging capabilities somewhat.)

kyleniemeyer commented 6 years ago

My only question is whether we want to incorporate something addressing the "software is an essential part of research, and thus should be evaluated and published" part of the comment to the paragraph in the paper.

arfon commented 6 years ago

My only question is whether we want to incorporate something addressing the "software is an essential part of research, and thus should be evaluated and published" part of the comment to the paragraph in the paper.

I think we should just leave this at the response to the reviewer.

danielskatz commented 6 years ago

suggestion:

While we agree that software is an essential part of research, and thus should be evaluated and published, we disagree on the credit issue. Our primary motivation in creating JOSS was in fact to provide credit to researchers who develop software (including RSEs, but applying beyond those as well). Thus, JOSS differs from traditional journals which evaluate originality and\slash or impact, although we do review for quality standards.

Furthermore, since JOSS is not designed as journal one reads, we do not primarily intend it to serve as a mechanism to find software. (Though we do plan to improve searching and tagging capabilities somewhat.)

Again, we should be consistent about tagging...

And regarding:

My only question is whether we want to incorporate something addressing the "software is an essential part of research, and thus should be evaluated and published" part of the comment to the paragraph in the paper.

I think the first sentence of 7 is good enough as is.