scikit-image paper

[Juan Nunez-Iglesias]

Hi All,

I'm moving the discussion of the paper to the mailing list, as requested by
Stefan. Here's a summary of the points so far:

* Josh brought up a Computational Science and Discovery special issue as
not only a possible venue for the paper but a general renewed call to
action about this paper.

* I vetoed the CSD special issue, despite having no formal power of veto
=P, and suggested we opt instead for a fully open access journal, such as
F1000Research.

* This and Johannes's email sparked a discussion about possible homes for
it. Current suggestions:
   - F1000 Research
   - JMLR MLOSS [sklearn published here]
   - Journal of Open Research Software [mahotas published here]
   - Image Processing On Line (ipol.im)
   - Journal on Image and Video Processing (jivp.eurasipjournals.com)

* Stefan suggested as the author list, "currently active core
contributors", but would certainly add more authors that have "made a
substantial contribution to the package." I feel the same way and I imagine
other current core devs would not object to this either. (?)

* There is a markdown template PR here:
https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image-paper/pull/2
Johannes gave a +1 to merging that, and I give another, so that makes +2,
I'll merge following this email. =)
(I have a question about this point: for managing LaTeX papers on git, I
have usually stuck to the convention of "1 sentence: 1 line". Do we want
this for this paper, or wrap at 72 characters, or something else?)

I think that's everything, though I'm sure the discussion will continue!

Stefan asked me to elaborate on my suggestion of F1000. I must admit I
don't know much about the other journals on the list, and would need to
look into them. Things that I *expect* from our eventual home are:
 - open access.
 - CC or similar licensing that allows text mining applications.
Further niceties offered by F1000Res:
 - papers published immediately as preprint.
 - open peer review
 - once two reviewers have signed off on the paper, it is considered "peer
reviewed". Reviewers can request modifications, and full paper and revision
history is maintained.
 - peer reviewed articles are indexed by PubMed.

Essentially, the review model is quite similar to the GitHub PR process,
which sounds great to me. PeerJ offers a similar (identical?) model, but is
currently not LaTeX friendly, which pretty much rules it out for this.

Juan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-image/attachments/20131118/049ea0d5/attachment.html>