Publishing: Determining what journals that publish software paper should provide to their reviewers

[danielskatz]

Determining what journals that publish software paper should provide to their reviewers (e.g., guidelines, mechanisms, metadata standards, etc.)

[npch]

A related question is whether journals should be providing tools like VM images / docker containers, or whether the entire review process should be moved upstream, whereby people planning to publish software papers get their development process audited by reviewers, rather than the software itself. This would be akin to preregistration of medical experiments.

[danielskatz]

Kind of like the F1000 model?

[jameshowison]

I think this is an interesting idea, but I note that it would be taking
something that is currently "backstage" (to use Goffman's terms) and making
it "frontstage". As such it is fraught with image presentation problems
and would quite likely be accompanied by the development of another
"backstage". Studies looking at transparency of work processes often find
things like that, a system introduces auditability of work and employees
keep notes on paper first (or use a personal email server ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaturgy_(sociology)

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Neil Chue Hong [email protected]
wrote:

A related question is whether journals should be providing tools like VM
images / docker containers, or whether the entire review process should be
moved upstream, whereby people planning to publish software papers get
their development process audited by reviewers, rather than the software
itself. This would be akin to preregistration of medical experiments.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment).