You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Zenodo initially looks like a good way for the citation in the paper as it has a proper DOI, but it can render something a bit weird from bibtex.
I'm thinking about alternative ways to refer to DAPPER especially considering that the structure of DAPPER changes among versions, which may cause a problem without specifying the version of DAPPER in publications.
It might be good to suggest a way of citation for publications using it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is an important point, so much so that suggested citation methods are now given at the top of the README. It says "If you use it in a publication, please cite, e.g., 'The experiments used (inspiration from) DAPPER [ref], version 1.2.1', where [ref] points to Zenodo/DOI.
I think this is good enough for the issue of versioning (one could even refer to git hashes). But yes, the Zenodo reference is not very clean. A much better solution would be publishing the docs in some way, similar to e.g.:
Zenodo initially looks like a good way for the citation in the paper as it has a proper DOI, but it can render something a bit weird from bibtex.
I'm thinking about alternative ways to refer to DAPPER especially considering that the structure of DAPPER changes among versions, which may cause a problem without specifying the version of DAPPER in publications.
It might be good to suggest a way of citation for publications using it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: