Message-ID: <87he8rpo0n.fsf@jeeves.blindglobe.net>
Date: 2003-04-21T20:57:12Z
From: A.J. Rossini
Subject: Validation of R
In-Reply-To: <a1.376fa859.2bd5b03d@aol.com> (TyagiAnupam@aol.com's message of "Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:36:13 EDT")
TyagiAnupam at aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 4/21/03 3:07:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> pgilbert at bank-banque-canada.ca writes:
>
>> There may be less work involved in doing (un-official) validation than there
>> is
>> in advertising how much is actually being done. Perhaps the simplest
>> approach is
>> for individuals to put together packages of tests with descriptions that
>> explain
>> the extent of the testing which is done, and then submit the packages to
>> CRAN.
>>
>
> Another suggestion to address the issue of validation in the long-term:
>
> 1) "Validation" of scientific research takes the form of peer-review, perhaps
> it is possible to come-up with a similar (not same) process for publishing
> software, while maintaining the openness.
Note that the journal of statistical software
(http://www.jstatsoft.org/) already does this.
> 2) We can also think of contribution to open source software as academic
> contribution
We can. I am personally aware of at least one major statistics
department that has decided that this is definitely not the case (and
aware of another that has).
best,
-tony
--
A.J. Rossini rossini at u.washington.edu http://software.biostat.washington.edu/
Biostatistics, U Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
FHCRC:Tu: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email
UW : Th: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments ... {{dropped}}