[joss] Proposal for author list

[stv0g]

Continuation of this comment from the reviewer: openjournals/joss-reviews#8401 (comment)

[stv0g]

Hi,

• @al3xa23
• @n-eiling
• @pipeacosta
• @fwege
• @iripiri
• @windrad6
• @leonardocarreras
• @fuentesgrau
• @mstevic

We are currently discussing, how we handle/adjust the author list of the JOSS paper in response to the comment by our reviewer: openjournals/joss-reviews#8401 (comment)

I proposed, to adjust it based on contribution to VILLASnode in the form of:

• Code
• User support
• Architectural guidance
• Documentation

Please feel free to comment or make alternative proposals.

[n-eiling]

This is not the order you proposed in the comment on the review, or am I missing something? We could also order the authors alphabetically or random.

[stv0g]

This is not the order you proposed in the comment on the review, or am I missing something?

Thanks for the note, I fixed the order to match the one suggested in the review comment.

[stv0g]

Hi @al3xa23 and everybody else,

How should we proceed? I would like to see some more feedback and/or approvals for this PR, so we can merge #930 and reply to the JOSS reviewer.

[al3xa23]

From my side, we can merge. No objections

[leonardocarreras]

@stv0g is there any particular reason to fully remove some people from the paper? It looks like you delete many names

[leonardocarreras]

I would like to add that in my specific case, I understand what I did can fit in https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/ as per the paper. It might happen that other people that were there also played a role (beyond writing code, for example as the review process is a valid reason to be included). I would suggest we need to wait some more days for written feedback from them, as it is also a period of vacations.

[stv0g]

Hi @leonardocarreras,

yes I removed some names as the reviewer questioned the authorship. He made the example for @al3xa23:

The author @al3xa23 is not the major contributor for the repo. They have made 4 commits, in comparison to stv0g who has made close to 4700 commits to the software. The contribution and authorship checklist is not really met, how do we proceed?

But I believe the same also applies to other authors. Or did we miss any significant non-code contribution to VILLASnode?

[leonardocarreras]

I did provide contributions to the text and reviewed the paper in many times on the process. I just suggest that as far as I am aware, the fact that you are not in working at RWTH ACS anymore might give you a partial picture of the state of things. If is just for the count of commits, some included authors have less commits. I still suggest that you can reach us to discuss without unilateral decisions, because it feels kinder and avoids long written text that could interpreted in a wrong way.
If all the rest think that the provided contributions have absolute zero value, then is probably fair.

[n-eiling]

In my opinion, we should keep all authors. Initiating, preparing, reviewing and pushing the publication is important and should be acknowledged. Sounds to me like the reviewers questioned the ordering of authors and not necessarily the number.

[stv0g]

@al3xa23 Thanks for the change. Could you approve the PR, so we can merge it?