search

rsagroup / rsatoolbox

Python library for Representational Similarity Analysis
MIT License
164 stars 34 forks source link

add CITATION.cff to repository #333

Open andreifoldes opened 1 year ago

andreifoldes commented 1 year ago

Describe the solution you'd like I'd like to cite this repository in my thesis and saw that is a cool way to cite repositories if they contain a CITATION.cff file. https://github.blog/2021-08-19-enhanced-support-citations-github/

Describe alternatives you've considered Currently I cited it like this: @software{represen2023, title = {Representational Similarity Analysis 3.0}, year = {2023}, month = {07}, date = {2023-07-19}, publisher = {RSA development group}, url = {https://github.com/rsagroup/rsatoolbox}, note = {original-date: 2019-10-07T02:08:28Z} }

JasperVanDenBosch commented 1 year ago

Thanks Andrei! This is a great suggestion. Let me talk to some of the others and we'll add this some time next week. For now your citation makes sense!

caiw commented 10 months ago

I've also just started a short project which will make use of the toolbox; it'd be cool to cite it in the resultant report.

shawnrhoads commented 6 months ago

I would also love to cite this toolbox for an upcoming manuscript! Following this issue thread in case there is any movement!

caiw commented 2 weeks ago

Apologies if this touches on an existing conversation of which I'm not aware, but I just typed out a citation as: "Representational Similarity Analysis 3.0 (Version 0.1.5) [Computer software]", and wondered if this was a confusing mixture of naming and semantic version numbering.

JasperVanDenBosch commented 2 weeks ago

Apologies if this touches on an existing conversation of which I'm not aware, but I just typed out a citation as: "Representational Similarity Analysis 3.0 (Version 0.1.5) [Computer software]", and wondered if this was a confusing mixture of naming and semantic version numbering.

Yeah it's a good point. I think some of us have discussed this in the past but didn't come up with a great solution. I think the options are:

  1. Keep the mix
  2. Adapt the versions, to continue at 3.0.1 etc
  3. Change the title.

But basically these each have downsides. To be fair this should go away when the paper becomes citable as then you wouldn't use the library version in the citation.