JP,
I would like to get back to the question if it is a good idea to
create DOI for all steps:
1. Several tutorials are a community effort and not contributed by a
single individual. This probably holds for 1 - 19. It is difficult to
decide on authorship here. This might be enough of a reason to
> Quick question - what was the rationale behind categorising it as a "data
> set" as opposed to "software"?
This seems to be a bug. I selected "software" of course. Note that the
word "data set" doesn't appear in the bibtex text.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Timo Heister
Please keep in mind that a zenodo DOI creates a reference to a
specific version of the source code.
> Timo, is it possible to edit any of the entries after a request for a DOI has
> been submitted?
You can edit most of the meta data including authors. I just updated
the title for example.
> A
> To put this in context, Andrew and I were having a discussion related to the
> use of the step-44 tutorial as a basis for further research.
You could also consider submitting to
Thanks for the replies thus far. Interesting points that you both have
raised. I was only introduced to Zenodo this last week and have just
created an account, so I wasn't fully aware of how it could / would have to
be used.
To put this in context, Andrew and I were having a discussion related
> But we could create DOIs for the tutorials that really only list the
> (original) authors of that program. Presumably, people who cite them would
> also cite deal.II itself.
I don't know how to do this in a simple way. Zenodo takes a github
repo and a specific release tag and creates a DOI for
Hey,
I think it is valuable having the option to cite a specific tutorial:
be it as a starting point (if somebody wants to do this) or, to claim
ownership (like I ask my students who contributed a tutorial do). I
already generate zenodo DOIs for deal.II, for example
