CITATION.cff from JOSS article

[rowanc1]

Recently went through @leouieda's open-science tutorial/presentation here and noticed no CFF files mentioned, this will add the following in the github UI:

See:

• https://citation-file-format.github.io
• https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-citation-files

I have taken the authors from the JOSS doi article.

[rowanc1]

I actually think the existing CITATION.rst is more useful, and I am actually a bit disappointed that the github UI does not show the DOI in the bibtex or APA citation, which basically means it is actually worse from a FAIR perspective (they opt to point to github instead, which I am sure is a battle that someone lost).

You can test it here:
https://github.com/rowanc1/pooch/tree/patch-2

Maybe some feedback for the github folks?! (Feel free to close this, as I think the UI is actually worse/misleading if there is an existing DOI.)

[leouieda]

@rowanc1 thanks for taking the time to do this! The mention was missing from that talk because I completely forgot about it 😨

To be honest, every time I thought about adding one to our repos I got put off by the huge amount of reading I would have to do to figure out the format. There are so many options and a lot of the examples are for Zenodo archives when I actually want a paper to be cited. I was actually waiting for either an automated tool that generates the file given a DOI or someone like you to stop by and add the file 😉

The citation from GitHub is completely wrong actually:

Uieda, L., Rubén Soler, S., Rampin, R., van Kemenade, H., Turk, M., Shapero, D., Banihirwe, A., & Leeman, J. (2020). Pooch: A friend to fetch your data files [Computer software]. https://github.com/fatiando/pooch

There is no journal name, issue, etc. I don't know enough about the CFF but maybe that's from the file saying that the citation is software instead of a paper: https://github.com/rowanc1/pooch/blob/patch-2/CITATION.cff#L6 ?

If it's really GitHub not doing a proper job, then this is probably the place for feedback: https://github.com/github/feedback/discussions/

[florian-wagner]

Yes, @leouieda, you are correct. If the citation type is article, it works as expected. So the APA and BibTeX entries for the pyGIMLi paper look correct (except for the empty brackets after the volume, since the article has no issue number...). I had to specify it as an additional reference (which you can also make the preferred citation, so that it's picked up by the GitHub UI).

https://github.com/gimli-org/gimli/blob/dev/CITATION.cff

[leouieda]

Thanks @florian-wagner, I put the information under a preferred-citation of type article. Seems to make worked well:

Uieda, L., Rubén Soler, S., Rampin, R., van Kemenade, H., Turk, M., Shapero, D., Banihirwe, A., & Leeman, J. (2020). Pooch: A friend to fetch your data files. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(45), 1943. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01943

@article{Uieda_Pooch_A_friend_2020,
  author = {Uieda, Leonardo and Rubén Soler, Santiago and Rampin, Rémi and van Kemenade, Hugo and Turk, Matthew and Shapero, Daniel and Banihirwe, Anderson and Leeman, John},
  doi = {10.21105/joss.01943},
  journal = {Journal of Open Source Software},
  number = {45},
  pages = {1943},
  title = {{Pooch: A friend to fetch your data files}},
  volume = {5},
  year = {2020}
}

[leouieda]

OK, merging this in! We can figure out what to do with the CITATION.rst file later.