Closed kyleniemeyer closed 6 years ago
Note about Calgo:
Regarding the note “Calgo”, please see http://calgo.acm.org/ and http://toms.acm.org/algorithms-policy.cfm. Some discussion of this long-running algorithm venue seems necessary.
Other journals mentioned in #10 and #17
Calgo is interesting—it does review algorithms/software, with a focus on
This software is refereed for originality, accuracy, robustness, completeness, portability, and lasting value
It does seem limited to software associated with papers published in Transactions on Mathematical Software, so this connection to a paper (along with the domain-specific nature) are some differences from JOSS. It is also fairly small, with only 986 published entries from 1960-today.
Geoscientific Model Development (GMD, https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/) is also worth mentioning. While the "model description papers" do focus on software, this seems more analogous to JORS since these are full-length papers. They also consider papers describing methods for assessing models, and papers for describing model experiments and evaluations.
One other similarity with GMD is that papers are first available in a discussion forum, where anyone can add comments alongside those from reviewers.
We could also discuss some instrumentation journals (mentioned in #10), like Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (https://www.geoscientific-instrumentation-methods-and-data-systems.net/index.html), or Elsevier's new Hardware X. I do see these as somewhat similar in spirit to JOSS etc. in publishing non-article scholarly products.
If we didn't, we should add a link to Neil's https://www.software.ac.uk/which-journals-should-i-publish-my-software and explain where we fit. If there are journals we've found that aren't in that list, we should suggest that Neil add them.