There is a certain unfairness in the citing when the citation goes to a
review paper, not to the source. Similarly, for software when the problem
is that not all the parts that contributed can be referenced, a software
paper describing the software, processing and what bit are used from here
and there will at least set up some traceability.
···
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Kathleen Tacina < kathleen.m.tacina at nasa.gov> wrote:
I've occasionally put software like matplotlib in the Acknowledgements
section, and included a reference there.
I wasn't aware of \nocite, I may use it in the future.
On 2/16/16 4:48 PM, matplotlib-users-request at python.org wrote:
Re: matplotlib at LIGO/GW observation
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-users mailing list
Matplotlib-users at python.org Matplotlib-users Info Page
I think a default addition in the Acknowledgements, with a citation,
(because it's important for automatic scholar tools, like G.Scholar
or H-factor calculations...) would probably be the best combination.
Indeed, something like :
"The author(s) thank the contributors of Matplotlib [Hunter:2007] for
making the software freely available."
2016-02-16 23:53 GMT+01:00 Kathleen Tacina <kathleen.m.tacina at nasa.gov>:
I've occasionally put software like matplotlib in the Acknowledgements
section, and included a reference there.
I wasn't aware of \nocite, I may use it in the future.
Re: matplotlib at LIGO/GW observation
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-users mailing list
Matplotlib-users at python.org Matplotlib-users Info Page