Skip to content

Citing R/Packages Question

7 messages · Derek Ogle, Roger Koenker, Achim Zeileis +4 more

#
I've had an email exchange with the authors of a recent paper
in Nature who also made a good faith effort to cite both R and the  
quantreg
package, and were told that the Nature "house style" didn't allow such
citations so they were dropped from the published paper and the
"supplementary material" appearing on the Nature website.

Since the CRAN website makes a special effort to make prior versions  
of packages
available, it would seem to me to be much more useful to cite version
numbers than access dates.  There  are serious questions about the
ephemerality of url citations, not all of which are adequately resolved
by the Wayback machine, and access dating, but it would be nice to
have some better standards for such contingent citations rather than
leave authors at the mercy of copy editors.  I would also be  
interested in
suggestions by other contributors.


url:    www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger                Roger Koenker
email   rkoenker at uiuc.edu                       Department of Economics
vox:    217-333-4558                            University of Illinois
fax:    217-244-6678                            Champaign, IL 61820
On May 8, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Derek Ogle wrote:

            
#
On Sat, 9 May 2009, roger koenker wrote:

            
Interesting. Software manuals with an ISBN are not good enough for the 
Nature "house style"? I wonder what the problem with that could be...
Definitely, yes. Current versions of R with current versions of quantreg 
for example yield:

   Roger Koenker (2009). quantreg: Quantile Regression.
   R package version 4.27. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=quantreg

Even if 4.27 is not current anymore it will be available under the 
"archive" link at the above URL. So an access date is not necessary. 
Pointing this out to the journal editors might help. If not, providing the 
access date (while keeping all other information) won't do any damage.
I wouldn't be aware of good generally applicable standards of citing 
software. The default output of citation() has been chosen because 
repository+package+version uniquely identify which package was used 
(not unsimilar to journal+volume+pages). Also, using the URL
   http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=quantreg
has the advantage that it is independent of the physical location on CRAN. 
So in case the structure of the package pages on CRAN changes in the 
future, the URL will still point to the relevant page with all necessary 
information.

Best,
Z
#
Most common styles (e.g. APA, Harvard) include the date of access for an 
electronic reference. While this may be an artifact of history, both 
reviewers and editors are justified in asking authors to adhere to the 
style used in a particular journal. That said, I don't see why Nature or 
any other journal would refuse to include a reference that was properly 
formatted.

Jim
1 day later
#
It would be nice if each package went through a peer-review and had a
related publication (either in R-news or J Stat Soft).  This publication can
then be used as the official citation for the package.  However, this still
would not address updates and versions of the package. 

Ravi.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Ravi Varadhan, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, The Center on Aging and Health

Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology 

Johns Hopkins University

Ph: (410) 502-2619

Fax: (410) 614-9625

Email: rvaradhan at jhmi.edu

Webpage:  http://www.jhsph.edu/agingandhealth/People/Faculty/Varadhan.html

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


-----Original Message-----
From: r-help-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On
Behalf Of roger koenker
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Derek Ogle
Cc: r-help at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Citing R/Packages Question

I've had an email exchange with the authors of a recent paper in Nature who
also made a good faith effort to cite both R and the quantreg package, and
were told that the Nature "house style" didn't allow such citations so they
were dropped from the published paper and the "supplementary material"
appearing on the Nature website.

Since the CRAN website makes a special effort to make prior versions of
packages available, it would seem to me to be much more useful to cite
version numbers than access dates.  There  are serious questions about the
ephemerality of url citations, not all of which are adequately resolved by
the Wayback machine, and access dating, but it would be nice to have some
better standards for such contingent citations rather than leave authors at
the mercy of copy editors.  I would also be interested in suggestions by
other contributors.


url:    www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger                Roger Koenker
email   rkoenker at uiuc.edu                       Department of Economics
vox:    217-333-4558                            University of Illinois
fax:    217-244-6678                            Champaign, IL 61820
On May 8, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Derek Ogle wrote:

            
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
______________________________________________
R-help at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
#
I have have a package that I wrote called StreamMetabolism; which I
use to calculate single station stream metabolism from diurnal oxygen
curves.  I would love to publish something about it (I am also an
entering PhD student and need publications); however, I am not sure
the applicability out side of a small subset of stream ecologists.
Also, JSS or Rnews may not be the proper forum.  We could publish a
bulletin or something with all of the packages as an official document
to site.  Just a half fleshed idea.
thanks

Stephen Sefick
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Ravi Varadhan <RVaradhan at jhmi.edu> wrote:

  
    
1 day later
#
Hi, Stephen: 


      Have you discussed this with any of your professors?  With a 
little luck, you might find the right prof to work with who could help 
you select an ecology journal and write an article for that journal 
giving an overview of your package.  I suggest you think in terms of a 
2-page overview, with half the space devoted to the most eye-catching 
graphic you've produced, showing the R commands to generate it and 
explaining why someone else might want to produce similar plots using 
your package -- or using R more generally.  Your chances of getting 
something like this accepted depend on the editors, but some journals 
might accept something like this when they would reject a longer article 
because it would not be sufficiently novel to justify publication.  You 
could also work it into a vignette and distribute it with your package 
while the journal is reviewing it. 


      If your favorite ecology journal rejects it, you can rework it for 
"R Journal" (the replacement for "R News") or the Journal of Statistical 
Software. 


      Good Luck! 
      Spencer Graves
stephen sefick wrote: