search

sje30 / sharing-report

INCF draft report for Cambridge 2014 meeting
1 stars 0 forks source link

alternative titles? #5

Closed sje30 closed 9 years ago

sje30 commented 9 years ago

How about a few alternative title suggestions? The "data and code" bit bothers me, as we are mostly talking about sharing code.

so, how about: Good practices for sharing code in Neuroscience

Good practices for sharing computer programs in Neuroscience

Towards open sharing of computer programs in Neuroscience

 Practical steps to improve sharing of computer programs in Neuroscience

I think the term code may be a bit vague here, hence its expansion to computer program.

sje30 commented 9 years ago

Any thoughts @jbpoline @benmarwick ?

benmarwick commented 9 years ago

Yes, this raises an interesting question about how people who use programming languages for research perceive their use of those tools.

One of my UW colleagues in Oceanography writes a lot of Python and R for his research, and publishes it, but doesn't consider himself a programmer or even someone who writes code. He sees his scripts as a kind of glue that move data from one software package to another to get output. I'm less modest, and would identify as a researcher that writes code, but probably not writing computer programs because that brings to my mind installers, GUIs, drop-down menus and so on, features of a more polished product than my R packages will ever be! But what's your take on how Neuro people perceive themselves as code-writers?

My preference would be for 'code' over 'computer programs', but perhaps a compromise could be something like 'computer code' (as Barnes 2010 has it). In Ince et al 2012 they use the word 'code' (n>100) much more often than 'program/s' (n=21) or software (n=47), although their title is 'The case for open computer programs'. In our current draft we favour use of 'code' (n=39) over program/s (n=9) and software (n=7).

So 'code' seems to be in common use to refer to lines of programming language written for research, but maybe we could add some qualification in the first paragraph to indicate that we're including everything on a spectrum from mature, widely used packages with numerous contributors to a few custom lines to generate a model and plot?

jbpoline commented 9 years ago

In my experience students, post-doc and researchers that are writting scripts in matlab or python for neuroimaging rarely consider themselves as "programmers" as their primary objective is to investigate a research question and produce results. Hence, they don't understand why they should adopt tools that have proved to be useful in software development since they don't see themselves as belonging to this community. I think they refer to their work as mostly "scripts", sometimes programs or code. Software seems to be for more mature and packaged programs. what about :

Towards open sharing of computer code in Neuroscience or Towards open sharing of computer code and programs in Neuroscience ?

I also like the "good practices" in the title - I guess this would make the title closer to the content. so, what about:

Towards standard practices for sharing code and programs in Neuroscience

btw, I think we are not talking about testing : may be worth a couple of sentences - will give it a go.

sje30 commented 9 years ago

Testing would be good.

Jb can you also add your affiliation?

On 19 July 2015 19:55:47 BST, Jean-Baptiste Poline notifications@github.com wrote:

In my experience students, post-doc and researchers that are writting scripts in matlab or python for neuroimaging rarely consider themselves as "programmers" as their primary objective is to investigate a research question and produce results. Hence, they don't understand why they should adopt tools that have proved to be useful in software development since they don't see themselves as belonging to this community. I think they refer to their work as mostly "scripts", sometimes programs or code. Software seems to be for more mature and packaged programs. what about :

Towards open sharing of computer code in Neuroscience or Towards open sharing of computer code and programs in Neuroscience ?

I also like the "good practices" in the title - I guess this would make the title closer to the content. so, what about:

Towards standard practices for sharing code and programs in Neuroscience

btw, I think we are not talking about testing : may be worth a couple of sentences - will give it a go.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/sje30/sharing-report/issues/5#issuecomment-122695190

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

sje30 commented 9 years ago

I like this one best. Except possibly "and programs" could be deleted.

Towards standard practices for sharing code and programs in Neuroscience