Hey All – we’ve had an interesting discussion about what we require in the review process. id like to spark a conversation surrounding citations
See initial discussion:
I think we all agree the having a citable piece of software is important but there are some very valid concerns about requiring it as a part of the pyopensci review process. please see the link above for more. Does anyone have thoughts on how to handle citations via the review process? I believe that ropensci requires is and often uses zenodo @noamross is that correct? @ocefpaf had some very good points however surrounding issues with requiring it for some people. Do we want to strongly suggest there is a citation associated with a package but not enforce it (similar to how we might handle code coverage which is a totally different thread which i will post about in the future).