[open-science] Citation advantage to providing code / software?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Victoria Stodden said she knew of at least one example. I'll ask her if I
see her again today.
On Aug 8, 2014 12:37 PM, "Carl Boettiger" <cboettig at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I'm aware of a handful of papers that have sought to quantify the
> influence of publishing data, e.g. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308,
> but I'm unaware of any study that has focused explicitly on those
> papers providing code (against the relevant control-group), or
> particularly those papers providing software packages (e.g. some
> journals like Methods in Ecology and Evolution publish "Applications
> Notes" about software that is intended for re-use, as well as
> methodological descriptions that are not necessarily accompanied by
> user-facing software).
>
> Is anyone aware of such studies that could provide more information?
>
> The closest thing I remember seeing was numbers of slightly higher
> citations in articles in the Journal of Biostatistics that had
> received their kitemark for providing code relative to those that had
> not -- I believe in some work by Victoria Stodden but cannot seem to
> find the reference.  (Regardless I believe the sample size was small).
>
> Thanks again for any references or leads,
>
> Carl
>
> --
> Carl Boettiger
> UC Santa Cruz
> http://carlboettiger.info/
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140810/078800f6/attachment.html>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]