> > If the work is "I translated Conventional Algorithm Foo into Julia" then > it probably wouldn't be that interesting
There have been some pushes to create a peer-reviewed publication path for software that is not necessarily scientifically novel. I'm not familiar with any in computational physics, but in statistics there is the Journal of Statistical Software, and in neuroscience/imaging there are things like the Insight Journal and the "Frontiers in..." imprints which have software-specific tracks. It is a difficult thing to evaluate though, because aside from the labor-intensiveness and other general problems of software review, the value of a scientific software contribution may only be obvious after several years of refinement and organic growth. This has been a problem for Julia and other software creators based in academia, when seeking grant funding. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jiahao Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > I second what Stefan and Erik have said. If the work is new and original > regardless of its implementation in Julia, then just submit it to where you > would ordinarily submit such work. If the work is "I translated > Conventional Algorithm Foo into Julia" then it probably wouldn't be that > interesting, unless possibly you demonstrate how your implementation makes > special use of unique language features, in which case that could be > highlighted as the main point of the work. > > Thanks, > > Jiahao Chen > Staff Research Scientist > MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory > >
