[Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy

[Jacob Barhak]

Hi Sheila,

In a nutshell, your arguments point towards GitHub as a preferred publication platform with little need to look for external publication tools. 

Yet we seriously have to check how the final publication may look like. Here are a few hurdles I can think of and may have simple solutions:

1. Consistent formatting across all papers if using PDFs or even RST or MD
2. Math Equations if not using PDFs
3. HTML pages - although I saw what Katy Huff was able to do in a github page and it is quite impressive. 

Some of these may be due to my own ignorance.

I will have to think about the review process and forms, yet submitting a review as a document to be merged by the organizer after moderation may be a good solution. This was what was done in 2012 to my understanding - although I still submitted reviews by email at that time since I was unfamiliar with github. If Github can simplify such a review process so that emails to a specific address will be directed to the proper branch it may help some reviewers novice to github. Yet there might be better ways to solicit and direct reviews to the repository - these are just initial crude thoughts. The ideas should be tested. 

Also unless we store virtual machines with code, there is no need to worry about disk space for publication. And it may be even possible to store differences of virtual machine snapshots within limited space. Never the less, there are other issues to solve before discussing publishing VMs. 

I will wait for more replies and think - I will appreciate more thoughts from others. 

        Jacob


Sent from my iPhone