Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider using CITATION.cff for making citation easier #942

Open
matthewfeickert opened this issue Apr 15, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Consider using CITATION.cff for making citation easier #942

matthewfeickert opened this issue Apr 15, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@matthewfeickert
Copy link

The `Combine` tool publication can be found [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06614). Please consider citing this reference if you use the `Combine` tool.

If you use a CITATION.cff file this makes it easier to communicate to people and programs how to cite software and associated papers.

c.f.:

@nucleosynthesis
Copy link
Contributor

nucleosynthesis commented Apr 15, 2024

Thanks, it's a nice idea. Within CMS, we use a very specific format for the citation (which is what is currently in the README) for CMS publications so as long as the converters handle that it's fine. I would leave the citation as it is on the docs pages however

@matthewfeickert
Copy link
Author

You control the information that is in the citation file, so it should be reproducible.

@nucleosynthesis
Copy link
Contributor

The point is that users should cite the publication, and only the publication. It seems like it might be possible to use the various fields in the online creator to yield the same information, but on a first try it doesn't seem like it was really intended for this purpose.

If you would consider proposing a CITATION.cff based on : https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/latest/#citation. that would be extremely helpful (though it will be updated once the paper is published).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants