infographic for principles? #119
Comments
|
Great Idea... happy to help. |
|
Suggestion from @ljhwang: create few slides for "Software Citation Evangelists" |
|
I'll help |
|
Important to have one slide visualizing a citation example, and connecting to principle. Consider 2nd slide from data citation principles deck. |
|
I would be happy to participate. I have seen a nice graphic from the Force11 community highlighting the full ecosystem of data, annotation, analysis, knowledge extraction around a research project, and visually showing where software citation is coupled into that ecosystem would be very helpful for people to frame software citation. |
|
I can take care of preparing a simple draft (and we can iterate from there) |
|
Great! i am happy to help too!! Best, Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
|
|
As a suggestion, like the style of infographic that @michaelbarton did for Bioboxes bioboxes/rfc#87 (comment) |
|
@ScottBGI +1; That's very nice. Also happy to help with graphic. |
|
like the basic concepts (but with more color!), we probably could use something like the top half. Best, Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
|
|
This is the figure I made for the RRID tech spec poster. I can adapt for this purpose... |
|
I'm happy to participate here as well. |
|
Considering our audience will come from a wide background in both familiarity with software citation and scientific domain, perhaps we should frame this in terms of the 4 W's (definitely not wedded to this scheme but for discussion sake):
The 2nd challenge is the graphic. Did the Data Citation Group do one? I am thinking it would be good to have a consistent look across the working groups. For those wishing to work on this, perhaps we move this off to a shared document. Suggestions? |
|
Before we move to a shared document, let's perhaps refine what graphics is we are aiming to do. It sounds like there are at least 3.
Which of these is the top priority to tackle? Perhaps lets start with consensus on this question and then move to a shared doc. (I recommend svg in this repository as this is the most interconvertible and least annoying format). |
|
is the second bullet out of scope? e.g. the Citation implementation group? |
|
I'm pinging here to raise this issue back up... We now have the final version of the document complete (as in this repo in tex, or in https://peerj.com/preprints/2169/ as text, and to be published in PeerJ Computer Science and the FORCE11 web site). So it's time to come back to creating a few slides and an infographic, then this group will have done all its work and can end, with an implementation group hopefully coming next. Does anyone want to take the lead on the infographic and slides? |
|
@mfenner - I just saw this post in on the DataCite blog https://blog.datacite.org/software-citation-principles/ with a very nice looking infographic. @espacial - it looks like this was created by you. Can you confirm the license for the graphic and whether we can re-use it? (If so, we should add a credit to the graphic and the license). |
|
Yes, the infographic was created by @espacial. |
|
@arfon Please credit freepik.com if you want to reuse this one, it's loosely based on one of their templates. I already offered myself to prepare a 'proper' one but I missed @danielskatz's request last month (holidays!). I'll prepare an original piece we can reuse freely, give me until tomorrow ;) |
If that's OK that would be great! |
|
This looks great. Thanks @espacial https://github.com/espacial for creating. Is it possible to tweak some of the icons? I like the Credit, Persistence and Accessibility ones but the others I do not either get the connection to or object to. Best, Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
|
|
What about this one? |
|
In general, I like the aspect of the first one that makes all principles seem equally important a bit better than this one, where it seems like there are chains of principles further and further from the center. On the other hand, I like the style (color, graphics, etc.) of this one better. |
|
Also, I wonder if the names of the principles could be a bit larger? |
|
+1 both of @danielskatz's comments. For a single infographic that depicts the principles, some combination of the two seems great. |
|
ditto here on dan’s comments I like the use of the “!” for importance in the 2nd one as well. Best, Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
|
|
Hi @espacial - I hate to bug you on something you are doing as a volunteer, but what's happened with this? |
|
Hi, How about a “target” instead of a scope sight for specificity? ( Other thoughts: I have a graphic artist here who can help make adjustments if necessary. I would need a clean copy (best resolution possible) for her to work with. Best, Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
|
|
Looks good. Are we moving away from the spareness of the data cite version?
https://blog.datacite.org/software-citation-principles/ <https://blog.datacite.org/software-citation-principles/>
I do like the part in which “Software Citation Principles” was in the middle.
If so, some thoughts:
change the “unique identification arrow” to a standard looking cursor/pointer - may convey the “machine actionable point”
remove extra circles/dots in background (distracting)
is the type size too small??? My eyes are not as young as they use to be.
how do we plan to use this? Some applications may not be ideal for a gray background (does this translate well to black and white?) - print, presentation, website, promotional - i do see a cool logo in this!
Best,
-Lorraine
*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656
… On Jan 23, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote:
Here is a new draft from @espacial <https://github.com/espacial>
comments are welcome
three.pdf <https://github.com/force11/force11-scwg/files/724328/three.pdf>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESQX55uWhipnBYwQEzaq14rwcemFEQIks5rVNhtgaJpZM4IJNJo>.
|
|
@espacial can easily make non-gray versions, I believe. I agree that removing the extra dots is a good idea. Going back to the original from the DataCite blog, I do like the framing, with "software is a critical part of modern research ..." at the top and "... yet there is little support for its acknowledgement and citation" at the bottom. changing the arrow to a pointer seems ok. I'm ok with the font size. |
|
2nd'ing Lorraine's points. Random other comments & suggestions:
Finally, I echo Lorraine's points about the size of the font. In terms of graphic design, it seems rather small compared to the overall size of the figure and the available space. Perhaps it could be increased just a little? Doesn't have to be made huge, but it looks like it could easily be made a little larger. Thanks to everyone who's working on this! |
|
Specificity and credit&attribution use exactly the same language as in the principles in the paper, which I do not want to change at this point. For Importance, the Principle in the paper is If you have a suggestion for a better short version of this than what is in the graphic, please put it here. |
|
If i remember correctly we veered away from too much specificity and intended to address them in a separate discussion on implementation.
Best,
-Lorraine
*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656
… On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote:
Specificity and credit&attribution use exactly the same language as in the principles in the paper, which I do not want to change at this point.
For Importance, the Principle in the paper is
"Software should be considered a legitimate and citable product of research. Software citations should be accorded the same importance in the scholarly record as citations of other research products, such as publications and data; they should be included in the metadata of the citing work, for example in the reference list of a journal article, and should not be omitted or separated. Software should be cited on the same basis as any other research product such as a paper or a book, that is, authors should cite the appropriate set of software products just as they cite the appropriate set of papers."
If you have a suggestion for a better short version of this than what is in the graphic, please put it here.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESQX6m3HZR-VCbiAfhCkOomHvrGpzjVks5rVR8BgaJpZM4IJNJo>.
|
|
Ah, okay, so "metadata" in this context is (e.g.) the references in a paper. I guess I didn't notice this use of "metadata" in the paper (my fault, obviously). I must say it feels strange to call the reference list "metadata" – it seems more like part of the paper's content to me, and not "data about the paper" as the term metadata would imply. But okay, that's fine, you folks no doubt already hashed this out. So the question is how to prevent readers like me from going down the wrong path when they read that sentence in the poster, and do it with as few words as possible. What about a parenthetical clarification like this: ? |
|
If it helps, you can think of registering a new piece of software as a product, the references for that software would be metadata. I think your suggestion is good, however. A new set of text for Importance would then be: Software should be considered a legitimate and citable product of research. Software citations should be accorded the same importance in the scholarly record as citations of other research products; they should be included in the metadata of the citing work, such as a reference list. Software should be cited on the same basis as any other research product such as a paper or a book. |
|
Interestingly, you can divide research outputs into information (documents - papers, books) and tools (instruments, special reagents, technologies, etc.)
Software partakes of both categories - it is both a document (source code), and a technology (deployed executable).
Tim
On Jan 24, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Daniel S. Katz <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If it helps, you can think of registering a new piece of software as a product, the references for that software would be metadata.
I think your suggestion is good, however. A new set of text for Importance would then be:
Software should be considered a legitimate and citable product of research. Software citations should be accorded the same importance in the scholarly record as citations of other research products; they should be included in the metadata of the citing work, such as a reference list. Software should be cited on the same basis as any other research product such as a paper or a book.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGT3j87u4lF3A_zqpiwYmFMk21z4n1uSks5rVky8gaJpZM4IJNJo>.
{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/force11/force11-scwg","title":"force11/force11-scwg","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/force11/force11-scwg"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@danielskatz in #119: If it helps, you can think of registering a new piece of software as a product, the references for that software would be metadata.\r\n\r\nI think your suggestion is good, however. A new set of text for Importance would then be:\r\n\r\nSoftware should be considered a legitimate and citable product of research. Software citations should be accorded the same importance in the scholarly record as citations of other research products; they should be included in the metadata of the citing work, such as a reference list. Software should be cited on the same basis as any other research product such as a paper or a book.\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"#119 (comment)"}}}
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
|
|
I am not keen on the modification. Is a reference list considered metadata? Is it too suggestive on what the preferred methods is?
Best,
-Lorraine
*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656
… On Jan 24, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Tim Clark ***@***.***> wrote:
Interestingly, you can divide research outputs into information (documents - papers, books) and tools (instruments, special reagents, technologies, etc.)
Software partakes of both categories - it is both a document (source code), and a technology (deployed executable).
Tim
On Jan 24, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.******@***.***>> wrote:
If it helps, you can think of registering a new piece of software as a product, the references for that software would be metadata.
I think your suggestion is good, however. A new set of text for Importance would then be:
Software should be considered a legitimate and citable product of research. Software citations should be accorded the same importance in the scholarly record as citations of other research products; they should be included in the metadata of the citing work, such as a reference list. Software should be cited on the same basis as any other research product such as a paper or a book.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGT3j87u4lF3A_zqpiwYmFMk21z4n1uSks5rVky8gaJpZM4IJNJo>.
{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/force11/force11-scwg","title":"force11/force11-scwg","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in ***@***.*** in #119: If it helps, you can think of registering a new piece of software as a product, the references for that software would be metadata.\r\n\r\nI think your suggestion is good, however. A new set of text for Importance would then be:\r\n\r\nSoftware should be considered a legitimate and citable product of research. Software citations should be accorded the same importance in the scholarly record as citations of other research products; they should be included in the metadata of the citing work, such as a reference list. Software should be cited on the same basis as any other research product such as a paper or a book.\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"#119 (comment)"}}}
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESQXzCGqzx64jrltOTBOZKDslm8ebn4ks5rVmOpgaJpZM4IJNJo>.
|
|
Here are two new versions (white and black backgrounds) from @espacial - I'm hopeful these are the last versions for now, but let us know |
|
Nice!
Thanks @especial
Best,
-Lorraine
*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656
… On Feb 13, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote:
Here are two new versions (white and black backgrounds) from @espacial <https://github.com/espacial> - I'm hopeful these are the last versions for now, but let us know
four_white.pdf <https://github.com/force11/force11-scwg/files/771425/four_white.pdf>
four.pdf <https://github.com/force11/force11-scwg/files/771424/four.pdf>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESQX65SRnYXvsDDd-cwSle3rFe4ay9aks5rcHH6gaJpZM4IJNJo>.
|
|
@danielskatz I like it! My only thought—and this is just putting an idea out there—is whether we want a version of that just with the image/icons and principle titles. Meaning, the above infographic without the body text associated with each principle. I'm mainly thinking about this in the context of a presentation or talk, where small text would detract from the message. |
|
I don't think we need that at this point. This is intended to be a larger, stand-alone graphic. Although a standard set of slides that build on this would also potentially be useful (though separate.) |
|
I can see where it might be good to get an image we can deconstruct as individual elements to make a slide set.
Best,
-Lorraine
*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656
… On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote:
I don't think we need that at this point. This is intended to be a larger, stand-alone graphic.
Although a standard set of slides that build on this would also potentially be useful (though separate.)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESQX2i2tisVa5aWa_-p4R-tWheygteaks5rcJ9mgaJpZM4IJNJo>.
|
|
@danielskatz @ljhwang yeah, we don't need an additional image, but perhaps just the source for the above images? Again, this is pretty minor—I think the above two are great as an infographic. |
|
ok, I will ask @espacial for the source (probably Illustrator) |
|
Hi,
The image is very nice indeed, excellent for a poster - a story of chapters to it.
I can imagine it as the start slide or the logo for the initiative without the fine grain text – only with the headings (in bold possibly). And then each heading can be zoom in followed by its own set of slides.
Any strings on using the image in our own presentations, i.e. we should acknowledge @espacial<https://github.com/espacial> for his effort to produce it (f11,wssspe)?
Ilian
From: Kyle Niemeyer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: force11/force11-scwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, 13 February 2017 18:33
To: force11/force11-scwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Subscribed <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [force11/force11-scwg] infographic for principles? (#119)
@danielskatz<https://github.com/danielskatz> @ljhwang<https://github.com/ljhwang>
|
|
Hi everybody, Both PDFs are 'sources' (editable PDFs) but if you want a different format (AI, SVG... ) I would be more than happy to export them. Same for the variations (with or without text, individual pieces... ). Daniel knows it's kind of painful to contact me, but it ends up happening 🙄 @iliant Let's make the image CC0! |
|
I'm adding versions of this in https://github.com/force11/force11-scwg/tree/master/infographic |
|
Thanks very much @espacial - I'm going to declare this done and close this in a week or so if there are no more comments |
![https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open){kind=link}
|
Thanks Dan and Laura. I just downloaded and this is awesome. I have a talk coming up in April and if I come up with anything clever (a stretch), I will share with the group.
Oh, just noticed … I think the gear icon is missing.
Thanks!
Best,
-Lorraine
*****************************
Lorraine Hwang, Ph.D.
Associate Director, CIG
530.752.3656
… On Feb 14, 2017, at 6:28 AM, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks very much @espacial <https://github.com/espacial> - I'm going to declare this done and close this in a week or so if there are no more comments
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#119 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESQX6uE_ZFuF3THY4zjGGW1JtBY4Dhcks5rcboUgaJpZM4IJNJo>.
|
|
Oh, just noticed … I think the gear icon is missing.
The gear doesn't go with a principle, so I didn't pull it out.
|
|
I've added a gear icon now |
Should we create a graphic of some type that makes this more appealing to a wider audience?
perhaps in addition, create a few (3?) slides that people can use to talk about this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: