Thomas Lumley wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Ramon Diaz-Uriarte wrote:
Dear Martin,
I'd suggest you check the "DESCRIPTION" file and ask the author(s) of the package (e.g., a package might be related to a tech report which might, now, be in press, or whatever).
The posted suggestions seem to be that you don't cite the package, you cite something else vaguely related to it instead. This violates both the purpose of a citation (a link to the original source) and the principle (which I hope R users support) that software is publishable in itself, not just as an appendage to text.
Most citation styles give rules for citing software and rules for citing URIs. Even when the package author has been completely unhelpful in constructing a package title you can still put together a perfectly reasonable citation, eg,
Lumley T (2003) Rmeta version 2.10. R package. http://cran.r-project.org
Some publishers might want a download date, or an explicit statement that it is software (eg to make searching easier).
-thomas
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
-- Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/ ECHIP, Inc. --- Randomness comes in bunches.
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
