Pubwication. Pubwication is what bwings us togethew today. Pubwication, that bwessed awwangement, that dweam within a dweam. And authorship, twue authorship, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah. So tweasuwe youw authorship.
Last week, our software paper on khmer 2.0 was published on F1000Research. We intend this paper to be …
read moreThere are comments.
Note: A year ago, I wrote this in response to an editorial request. Ultimately they weren't interested in publishing it, and I got distracted and this languished on my hard disk. So when I remembered it recently, I decided to just push it out to my blog, where I should …
read moreThere are comments.
This is a response to (parts of) Dr. Lior Pachter's post, "The myths of bioinformatics software". (You can also see my post on bioinformatics software licensing for at least some of the background arguments.)
I agree with a lot of what Lior says: most bioinformatics software is not very good …
read moreThere are comments.
So I wrote this thing that got an awful lot of comments, many telling me that I'm just plain wrong. I think it's impossible to respond comprehensively :). But here are some responses.
In that blog post, I argued that software shouldn't …
There are comments.
Update - I've written Yet Another blog post, More on scientific software on this topic. I think this blog post is a mess so you should read that one first ;).
This blog post was spurred by a simple question from Pauline Barmby on Twitter. My response didn't, ahem, quite fit in …
read moreThere are comments.
tl;dr? A while back I wrote that there are three uses of research software: replication, reproduction, and reuse. The world of computational science would be better off if people clearly delineated whether or not they wanted anyone else to reuse their software, and I think it's a massive mistake …
read moreThere are comments.