authorship and citation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

authorship and citation

Adrian Dușa
Dear R developers,

This is a rather peculiar question, but nevertheless I would still need an
answer for.
It is about an R package which I created (namely QCA), and from versions
1.0-0 to 1.1-4 I had a co-author.
The co-author recently withdrawn from the package development, but still
requires to be left in the authors list and be cited for the package in the
CITATION file.

Obviously, one could not require citations for further developments, but
don't know how exactly to proceed (I would like to be fair and comply to
rules).

I have three options:

1. Since the co-author withdrawn from the package development, erase his
name from the list of authors (but duly recognising his past contribution
in the package description file)

2. Preserve his name in the list of authors (with the comment "up to
version 1.1-4"), but erasing his name from the citation file

3. Keep his name both in the authors list and in the citation file
indefinitely, even though he doesn't do any development work anymore (I
have been threatened with a legal process for plagiarism if I did
otherwise).

My gut feeling is, since his name is related to the previous versions,
anyone using those versions would cite him as well, but otherwise I don't
feel comfortable citing my former co-author for the current work he hasn't
contributed to.

At this point, I would really use an advice, as on the other hand I
wouldn't want to break any regulation I might not be aware of.

Best wishes,
Adrian


--
Adrian Dusa
University of Bucharest
Romanian Social Data Archive
Soseaua Panduri nr.90
050663 Bucharest sector 5
Romania

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Uwe Ligges-3
Simply advice:

The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably
copyright holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it
would be a CRAN policy violation since even if he does not develop
further on, he developed parts of the so far existing package (if you
talk about a CRAN package).

I am not a lawyer, hence I cannot speak for copyright/license stuff in
general, hence my comments only about CRAN policies.


Best,
Uwe Ligges


On 05.10.2015 23:02, Adrian Dușa wrote:

> Dear R developers,
>
> This is a rather peculiar question, but nevertheless I would still need an
> answer for.
> It is about an R package which I created (namely QCA), and from versions
> 1.0-0 to 1.1-4 I had a co-author.
> The co-author recently withdrawn from the package development, but still
> requires to be left in the authors list and be cited for the package in the
> CITATION file.
>
> Obviously, one could not require citations for further developments, but
> don't know how exactly to proceed (I would like to be fair and comply to
> rules).
>
> I have three options:
>
> 1. Since the co-author withdrawn from the package development, erase his
> name from the list of authors (but duly recognising his past contribution
> in the package description file)
>
> 2. Preserve his name in the list of authors (with the comment "up to
> version 1.1-4"), but erasing his name from the citation file
>
> 3. Keep his name both in the authors list and in the citation file
> indefinitely, even though he doesn't do any development work anymore (I
> have been threatened with a legal process for plagiarism if I did
> otherwise).
>
> My gut feeling is, since his name is related to the previous versions,
> anyone using those versions would cite him as well, but otherwise I don't
> feel comfortable citing my former co-author for the current work he hasn't
> contributed to.
>
> At this point, I would really use an advice, as on the other hand I
> wouldn't want to break any regulation I might not be aware of.
>
> Best wishes,
> Adrian
>
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Andrew Robinson-6
As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package?

Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under
which it was released. Then the original package, by both authors, still
exists (and a final version could point to the new one) and the new
package, citing the previous version appropriately, is by a single author.

The page of CRAN's policies doesn't seem to touch on forking, presumably
because it's out of scope.

Best wishes,

Andrew



On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Uwe Ligges <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Simply advice:
>
> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably
> copyright holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would
> be a CRAN policy violation since even if he does not develop further on, he
> developed parts of the so far existing package (if you talk about a CRAN
> package).
>
> I am not a lawyer, hence I cannot speak for copyright/license stuff in
> general, hence my comments only about CRAN policies.
>
>
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
>
>
>
> On 05.10.2015 23:02, Adrian Dușa wrote:
>
>> Dear R developers,
>>
>> This is a rather peculiar question, but nevertheless I would still need an
>> answer for.
>> It is about an R package which I created (namely QCA), and from versions
>> 1.0-0 to 1.1-4 I had a co-author.
>> The co-author recently withdrawn from the package development, but still
>> requires to be left in the authors list and be cited for the package in
>> the
>> CITATION file.
>>
>> Obviously, one could not require citations for further developments, but
>> don't know how exactly to proceed (I would like to be fair and comply to
>> rules).
>>
>> I have three options:
>>
>> 1. Since the co-author withdrawn from the package development, erase his
>> name from the list of authors (but duly recognising his past contribution
>> in the package description file)
>>
>> 2. Preserve his name in the list of authors (with the comment "up to
>> version 1.1-4"), but erasing his name from the citation file
>>
>> 3. Keep his name both in the authors list and in the citation file
>> indefinitely, even though he doesn't do any development work anymore (I
>> have been threatened with a legal process for plagiarism if I did
>> otherwise).
>>
>> My gut feeling is, since his name is related to the previous versions,
>> anyone using those versions would cite him as well, but otherwise I don't
>> feel comfortable citing my former co-author for the current work he hasn't
>> contributed to.
>>
>> At this point, I would really use an advice, as on the other hand I
>> wouldn't want to break any regulation I might not be aware of.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



--
Andrew Robinson
Deputy Director, CEBRA, School of Biosciences
Reader & Associate Professor in Applied Statistics  Tel: (+61) 0403 138 955
School of Mathematics and Statistics                        Fax: +61-3-8344
4599
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010 Australia
Email: [hidden email]
Website: http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~andrewpr

MSME: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439858028
FAwR: http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~andrewpr/FAwR/
SPuR: http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/spuRs/

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Uwe Ligges-3


On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote:
> As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package?
>
> Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under
> which it was released. Then the original package, by both authors, still
> exists (and a final version could point to the new one) and the new
> package, citing the previous version appropriately, is by a single author.

No, copyright remains. You can fork given the license permits it, but
there are still the same copyright holders ...

Best,
Uwe Ligges



>
> The page of CRAN's policies doesn't seem to touch on forking, presumably
> because it's out of scope.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Uwe Ligges <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Simply advice:
>>
>> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably
>> copyright holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would
>> be a CRAN policy violation since even if he does not develop further on, he
>> developed parts of the so far existing package (if you talk about a CRAN
>> package).
>>
>> I am not a lawyer, hence I cannot speak for copyright/license stuff in
>> general, hence my comments only about CRAN policies.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Uwe Ligges
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05.10.2015 23:02, Adrian Dușa wrote:
>>
>>> Dear R developers,
>>>
>>> This is a rather peculiar question, but nevertheless I would still need an
>>> answer for.
>>> It is about an R package which I created (namely QCA), and from versions
>>> 1.0-0 to 1.1-4 I had a co-author.
>>> The co-author recently withdrawn from the package development, but still
>>> requires to be left in the authors list and be cited for the package in
>>> the
>>> CITATION file.
>>>
>>> Obviously, one could not require citations for further developments, but
>>> don't know how exactly to proceed (I would like to be fair and comply to
>>> rules).
>>>
>>> I have three options:
>>>
>>> 1. Since the co-author withdrawn from the package development, erase his
>>> name from the list of authors (but duly recognising his past contribution
>>> in the package description file)
>>>
>>> 2. Preserve his name in the list of authors (with the comment "up to
>>> version 1.1-4"), but erasing his name from the citation file
>>>
>>> 3. Keep his name both in the authors list and in the citation file
>>> indefinitely, even though he doesn't do any development work anymore (I
>>> have been threatened with a legal process for plagiarism if I did
>>> otherwise).
>>>
>>> My gut feeling is, since his name is related to the previous versions,
>>> anyone using those versions would cite him as well, but otherwise I don't
>>> feel comfortable citing my former co-author for the current work he hasn't
>>> contributed to.
>>>
>>> At this point, I would really use an advice, as on the other hand I
>>> wouldn't want to break any regulation I might not be aware of.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> [hidden email] mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>
>
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Simon Urbanek

On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Uwe Ligges <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote:
>> As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package?
>>
>> Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under
>> which it was released. Then the original package, by both authors, still
>> exists (and a final version could point to the new one) and the new
>> package, citing the previous version appropriately, is by a single author.
>
> No, copyright remains. You can fork given the license permits it, but there are still the same copyright holders ...
>

To clarify, legally, you can fork a standard GPL package and make any changes you want, including changing authors fields etc. If you don't own copyright for the entire work then you cannot change the license without consent from the other copyright holders, otherwise you have all the rights as anyone else granted by the license.

However, CRAN policies go beyond that and say

"Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is not misrepresented.
Preferably, an ‘Authors@R’ would be used with ‘ctb’ roles for the authors of such code. Alternatively, the ‘Author’ field should list these authors as contributors.
Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this should preferably be indicated via ‘cph’ roles in the ‘Authors@R’ field, or using a ‘Copyright’ field (if necessary referring to an inst/COPYRIGHTS file)."

This means that CRAN will not accept a package where you did not list all copyright holders in one of the Author roles, although it is legal for you to do so outside of CRAN.

Cheers,
Simon


> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
>
>
>
>>
>> The page of CRAN's policies doesn't seem to touch on forking, presumably
>> because it's out of scope.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Uwe Ligges <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Simply advice:
>>>
>>> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably
>>> copyright holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would
>>> be a CRAN policy violation since even if he does not develop further on, he
>>> developed parts of the so far existing package (if you talk about a CRAN
>>> package).
>>>
>>> I am not a lawyer, hence I cannot speak for copyright/license stuff in
>>> general, hence my comments only about CRAN policies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Uwe Ligges
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05.10.2015 23:02, Adrian Dușa wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear R developers,
>>>>
>>>> This is a rather peculiar question, but nevertheless I would still need an
>>>> answer for.
>>>> It is about an R package which I created (namely QCA), and from versions
>>>> 1.0-0 to 1.1-4 I had a co-author.
>>>> The co-author recently withdrawn from the package development, but still
>>>> requires to be left in the authors list and be cited for the package in
>>>> the
>>>> CITATION file.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, one could not require citations for further developments, but
>>>> don't know how exactly to proceed (I would like to be fair and comply to
>>>> rules).
>>>>
>>>> I have three options:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Since the co-author withdrawn from the package development, erase his
>>>> name from the list of authors (but duly recognising his past contribution
>>>> in the package description file)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Preserve his name in the list of authors (with the comment "up to
>>>> version 1.1-4"), but erasing his name from the citation file
>>>>
>>>> 3. Keep his name both in the authors list and in the citation file
>>>> indefinitely, even though he doesn't do any development work anymore (I
>>>> have been threatened with a legal process for plagiarism if I did
>>>> otherwise).
>>>>
>>>> My gut feeling is, since his name is related to the previous versions,
>>>> anyone using those versions would cite him as well, but otherwise I don't
>>>> feel comfortable citing my former co-author for the current work he hasn't
>>>> contributed to.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I would really use an advice, as on the other hand I
>>>> wouldn't want to break any regulation I might not be aware of.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> [hidden email] mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Stephen Ellison
In reply to this post by Uwe Ligges-3
> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright
> holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN
> policy violation ...

It's a bit of a philosophical question right now, but at some point in a developing package's life - particularly one that starts small but is subsequently refactored in growth - there may be no code left that was contributed by the original developer.

Is there a point at which the original developer should not stay on the author list?

S Ellison



*******************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential. Any use, copying or
disclosure other than by the intended recipient is unauthorised. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately via +44(0)20 8943 7000 or notify [hidden email]
and delete this message and any copies from your computer and network.
LGC Limited. Registered in England 2991879.
Registered office: Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LY, UK
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Martyn Plummer-3



On 06 Oct 2015, at 14:09, S Ellison <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright
>> holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN
>> policy violation ...
>
> It's a bit of a philosophical question right now, but at some point in a developing package's life - particularly one that starts small but is subsequently refactored in growth - there may be no code left that was contributed by the original developer.

That is indeed the philosophical question of the ship of Theseus.

Martyn

> Is there a point at which the original developer should not stay on the author list?
>
> S Ellison
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential. Any u...{{dropped:19}}

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Simon Urbanek
In reply to this post by Stephen Ellison

On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:58 AM, S Ellison <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright
>> holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN
>> policy violation ...
>
> It's a bit of a philosophical question right now, but at some point in a developing package's life - particularly one that starts small but is subsequently refactored in growth - there may be no code left that was contributed by the original developer.
>
> Is there a point at which the original developer should not stay on the author list?
>

CRAN policies only require the presence of copyright holders, so if there is no content left to which the original author has copyright, then s/he doesn't need to be listed. Note that this extends to all the content, not just code.

Cheers,
S


> S Ellison
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential. Any u...{{dropped:14}}

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Prof Brian Ripley
In reply to this post by Stephen Ellison
On 06/10/2015 12:58, S Ellison wrote:

(quoting without attribution to the author, who would appear to be Uwe
Liggges).

>> The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright
>> holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN
>> policy violation ...
>
> It's a bit of a philosophical question right now, but at some point in a developing package's life - particularly one that starts small but is subsequently refactored in growth - there may be no code left that was contributed by the original developer.
>
> Is there a point at which the original developer should not stay on the author list?

Authorship is not just about code.  For example, there are functions in
R which have been completely recoded, but the design and documentation
remain.  Copyright can apply to designs and there is shading between
inspiration and infringement.   And many of us believe that inspiration
should be credited as a moral even if not a legal obligation.

As in "George Washington's axe" and similar myths, if all the parts are
replaced it remains of the original design.

--
Brian D. Ripley,                  [hidden email]
Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, University of Oxford
1 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3TG, UK

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Dirk Eddelbuettel

On 6 October 2015 at 13:38, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| Authorship is not just about code.

An fair credit about is the only currency we have in Open Source projects.

Dirk

--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | [hidden email]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Adrian Dușa
In reply to this post by Simon Urbanek
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Simon Urbanek <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> [...]
>
> To clarify, legally, you can fork a standard GPL package and make any
> changes you want, including changing authors fields etc. If you don't own
> copyright for the entire work then you cannot change the license without
> consent from the other copyright holders, otherwise you have all the rights
> as anyone else granted by the license.
>
> However, CRAN policies go beyond that and say
>
> "Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including from
> R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are
> preserved and authorship is not misrepresented.
> Preferably, an ‘Authors@R’ would be used with ‘ctb’ roles for the authors
> of such code. Alternatively, the ‘Author’ field should list these authors
> as contributors.
> Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors,
> this should preferably be indicated via ‘cph’ roles in the ‘Authors@R’
> field, or using a ‘Copyright’ field (if necessary referring to an
> inst/COPYRIGHTS file)."
>
> This means that CRAN will not accept a package where you did not list all
> copyright holders in one of the Author roles, although it is legal for you
> to do so outside of CRAN.
>


Please pardon my delay, I am writing from California and it's still morning
here.
I understand very well that I need to keep the previous co-author in the
list of authors, and duly acknowledge his contribution.
I would still be interested in the formal rules of compiling the citation
file (example package Rcmdr), but for the moment it can be automatically
generated via citation("QCA").

Both of these are perfectly compliant with the CRAN policies.

As another attempt to solve the matter, I wonder if any rules would be
broken if I used the .onAttach(...) function to print a message in the line
of:

> library(QCA)

Users are encouraged to cite this package as:

  Dusa, Adrian (2015). QCA: Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package
Version 1.2-0,
  URL: http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA

This is just an encouragement, not a requirement, and the official citation
file meets the CRAN policies. Would that be acceptable?

Best wishes,
Adrian


--
Adrian Dusa
University of Bucharest
Romanian Social Data Archive
Soseaua Panduri nr.90
050663 Bucharest sector 5
Romania

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Gabriel Becker
Adrian,

I am not on the CRAN  or R-core teams, so the following is my own view,
but...

> library(QCA)
>
> Users are encouraged to cite this package as:
>
>   Dusa, Adrian (2015). QCA: Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package
> Version 1.2-0,
>   URL: http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA
>
> This is just an encouragement, not a requirement, and the official citation
> file meets the CRAN policies. Would that be acceptable?
>


At the very least, this is seems to be a flagrant violation of the *spirit*
of the CRAN policy, which AFAIK is intended to enforce acknowledgement of
the contributions of all copyright holders in the package. The fact that
you are trying to bypass the policy by suggesting users use an unofficial
citation which would not comply with the policy while maintaining an
official one which complies, but which you don't want users to see  is
probably a suggestion that you shouldn't do that.

Best,
~G


>
> Best wishes,
> Adrian
>
>
> --
> Adrian Dusa
> University of Bucharest
> Romanian Social Data Archive
> Soseaua Panduri nr.90
> 050663 Bucharest sector 5
> Romania
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



--
Gabriel Becker, PhD
Computational Biologist
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Genentech, Inc.

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Thierry Onkelinx
In reply to this post by Adrian Dușa
Dear Adrian,

Have a look at the DESCRIPTION of the RODBC package. One of the authors was
contributing from 1999 to 2002. I have the feeling that your situation is
similar.

Best regards,

ir. Thierry Onkelinx
Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek / Research Institute for Nature and
Forest
team Biometrie & Kwaliteitszorg / team Biometrics & Quality Assurance
Kliniekstraat 25
1070 Anderlecht
Belgium

To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more
than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say
what the experiment died of. ~ Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher
The plural of anecdote is not data. ~ Roger Brinner
The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not
ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data.
~ John Tukey

2015-10-06 18:55 GMT+02:00 Adrian Dușa <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Simon Urbanek <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > To clarify, legally, you can fork a standard GPL package and make any
> > changes you want, including changing authors fields etc. If you don't own
> > copyright for the entire work then you cannot change the license without
> > consent from the other copyright holders, otherwise you have all the
> rights
> > as anyone else granted by the license.
> >
> > However, CRAN policies go beyond that and say
> >
> > "Where code is copied (or derived) from the work of others (including
> from
> > R itself), care must be taken that any copyright/license statements are
> > preserved and authorship is not misrepresented.
> > Preferably, an ‘Authors@R’ would be used with ‘ctb’ roles for the
> authors
> > of such code. Alternatively, the ‘Author’ field should list these authors
> > as contributors.
> > Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors,
> > this should preferably be indicated via ‘cph’ roles in the ‘Authors@R’
> > field, or using a ‘Copyright’ field (if necessary referring to an
> > inst/COPYRIGHTS file)."
> >
> > This means that CRAN will not accept a package where you did not list all
> > copyright holders in one of the Author roles, although it is legal for
> you
> > to do so outside of CRAN.
> >
>
>
> Please pardon my delay, I am writing from California and it's still morning
> here.
> I understand very well that I need to keep the previous co-author in the
> list of authors, and duly acknowledge his contribution.
> I would still be interested in the formal rules of compiling the citation
> file (example package Rcmdr), but for the moment it can be automatically
> generated via citation("QCA").
>
> Both of these are perfectly compliant with the CRAN policies.
>
> As another attempt to solve the matter, I wonder if any rules would be
> broken if I used the .onAttach(...) function to print a message in the line
> of:
>
> > library(QCA)
>
> Users are encouraged to cite this package as:
>
>   Dusa, Adrian (2015). QCA: Qualitative Comparative Analysis. R Package
> Version 1.2-0,
>   URL: http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA
>
> This is just an encouragement, not a requirement, and the official citation
> file meets the CRAN policies. Would that be acceptable?
>
> Best wishes,
> Adrian
>
>
> --
> Adrian Dusa
> University of Bucharest
> Romanian Social Data Archive
> Soseaua Panduri nr.90
> 050663 Bucharest sector 5
> Romania
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Adrian Dușa
In reply to this post by Gabriel Becker
Hi Gabriel,

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Gabriel Becker <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> [...]
>
> At the very least, this is seems to be a flagrant violation of the
> *spirit* of the CRAN policy, which AFAIK is intended to enforce
> acknowledgement of the contributions of all copyright holders in the
> package. The fact that you are trying to bypass the policy by suggesting
> users use an unofficial citation which would not comply with the policy
> while maintaining an official one which complies, but which you don't want
> users to see  is probably a suggestion that you shouldn't do that.
>


But that is the very point: I read the CRAN policies twice, and there is no
official guideline on how to compile the citation.
Regarding the Source packages, the policies mention:

######
The ownership of copyright and intellectual property rights of all
components of the package must be clear and unambiguous (including from the
authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or
derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be
taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is
not misrepresented.
Preferably, an ‘Authors@R’ would be used with ‘ctb’ roles for the authors
of such code. Alternatively, the ‘Author’ field should list these authors
as contributors.

Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors, this
should preferably be indicated via ‘cph’ roles in the ‘Authors@R’ field, or
using a ‘Copyright’ field (if necessary referring to an inst/COPYRIGHTS
file).

Trademarks must be respected.
######

Now, that requirement is already met: the former author is still in the
authors' list. So the contribution of the former author is duly
acknowledged, but the fundamental issue of my question related to the
citation file, for which the CRAN policies doesn't offer any other
information.

If the spirit of the CRAN policies is to enforce citing each and every one
of the authors, then I don't understand why the citation from package Rcmdr
meets this spirit, while my suggestion doesn't.

I apologize for pushing this topic to the limit, but I haven't got an
answer to this question yet...

Best wishes,
Adrian

PS: @Thierry: I did take a look at RODBC, but the citation information is
generated automatically upon package installation (no other special file on
CRAN)

--
Adrian Dusa
University of Bucharest
Romanian Social Data Archive
Soseaua Panduri nr.90
050663 Bucharest sector 5
Romania

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Adrian Dușa
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Adrian Dușa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> If the spirit of the CRAN policies is to enforce citing each and every
one of the authors, then I don't understand why the citation from package
Rcmdr meets this spirit, while my suggestion doesn't.
>
> I apologize for pushing this topic to the limit, but I haven't got an
answer to this question yet...


Out of curiosity, upon random checks there seem to be many other packages
in similar situations (which have multiple authors, but cite only a subset):
SamplingStrata
sandwich
SAVE
seawave

What all of these cases seem to have in common is an older published
journal article, and the citation adhered to that article irrespective of
how many authors subsequently contributed to that package.

Would it suffice to provide such an article, then?
Adrian

--
Adrian Dusa
University of Bucharest
Romanian Social Data Archive
Soseaua Panduri nr.90
050663 Bucharest sector 5
Romania

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Gabriel Becker
In reply to this post by Adrian Dușa
Adrian,

Responses inline

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Adrian Dușa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gabriel,
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Gabriel Becker <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> At the very least, this is seems to be a flagrant violation of the
>> *spirit* of the CRAN policy, which AFAIK is intended to enforce
>> acknowledgement of the contributions of all copyright holders in the
>> package. The fact that you are trying to bypass the policy by suggesting
>> users use an unofficial citation which would not comply with the policy
>> while maintaining an official one which complies, but which you don't want
>> users to see  is probably a suggestion that you shouldn't do that.
>>
>
>
> But that is the very point: I read the CRAN policies twice, and there is
> no official guideline on how to compile the citation.
> Regarding the Source packages, the policies mention:
>

> ######
> The ownership of copyright and intellectual property rights of all
> components of the package must be clear and unambiguous (including from the
> authors specification in the DESCRIPTION file). Where code is copied (or
> derived) from the work of others (including from R itself), care must be
> taken that any copyright/license statements are preserved and authorship is
> not misrepresented.
> Preferably, an ‘Authors@R’ would be used with ‘ctb’ roles for the authors
> of such code. Alternatively, the ‘Author’ field should list these authors
> as contributors.
>
> Where copyrights are held by an entity other than the package authors,
> this should preferably be indicated via ‘cph’ roles in the ‘Authors@R’
> field, or using a ‘Copyright’ field (if necessary referring to an
> inst/COPYRIGHTS file).
>
> Trademarks must be respected.
> ######
>
> Now, that requirement is already met: the former author is still in the
> authors' list. So the contribution of the former author is duly
> acknowledged, but the fundamental issue of my question related to the
> citation file, for which the CRAN policies doesn't offer any other
> information.
>

The citation mechanism, AFAIK, has two purposes. One is to associate a
published article/book/etc with an r package, where appropriate (and there
authorship and inclusion would need to meet the requirements of the
publishing journal). The other is to give a way for other works to cite the
work done in developing the package.

If you don't acknowledge that it is "heavily implied" that in the second
case all authors of the package should appear in the citation (this is
almost definitionally true of citations, I would think) I'm not really sure
what to tell you.

Approached from a different angle, what reason do you have for wanting the
other other to not appear in the citation for the package other than
minimizing/not acknowledging the copyright-holding work that he or she did
on the project?


>
> If the spirit of the CRAN policies is to enforce citing each and every one
> of the authors, then I don't understand why the citation from package Rcmdr
> meets this spirit, while my suggestion doesn't.
>

I don't have any knowledge of what Rcmdr does with regards to the citations
or the historical context that would make it relevant to the discussion
here.

>
> I apologize for pushing this topic to the limit, but I haven't got an
> answer to this question yet...
>

With respect, not receiving the answer you wanted isn't the same as not
receiving an answer.

Best,
~G


>
> Best wishes,
> Adrian
>
> PS: @Thierry: I did take a look at RODBC, but the citation information is
> generated automatically upon package installation (no other special file on
> CRAN)
>
> --
> Adrian Dusa
> University of Bucharest
> Romanian Social Data Archive
> Soseaua Panduri nr.90
> 050663 Bucharest sector 5
> Romania
>



--
Gabriel Becker, PhD
Computational Biologist
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Genentech, Inc.

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Adrian Dușa
Dear Gabriel,

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Gabriel Becker <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> [...]
>
>>
>> I apologize for pushing this topic to the limit, but I haven't got an
>> answer to this question yet...
>>
>
> With respect, not receiving the answer you wanted isn't the same as not
> receiving an answer.
>

I very much appreciate your patience with me, and I am grateful for it.
The question is I believe very important, for I would like to avoid
submitting a new version of the package only to be told that I did
something wrong.

As so many other packages seem to have a lot of flexibility in compiling
the citation file, what I am inquiring is: will I be prosecuted for
submitting a new version which doesn't include all the authors in the
citation file, especially since the other author is no longer contributing?
(let's say I will provide a single author, published journal article,
referring specifically to this package).

The work of the other author is duly acknowledged in his position in the
authors' list.
As I previously wrote, citing Dusa and Other (2015) implies equal citation
rights for unequal work, a thing that I am uncomfortable with. There is a
huge amount of work being involved in this subsequent version, to which the
former author didn't contribute anything at all...

Best wishes,
Adrian

--
Adrian Dusa
University of Bucharest
Romanian Social Data Archive
Soseaua Panduri nr.90
050663 Bucharest sector 5
Romania

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Gabriel Becker
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Adrian Dușa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Gabriel,
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Gabriel Becker <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> I apologize for pushing this topic to the limit, but I haven't got an
>>> answer to this question yet...
>>>
>>
>> With respect, not receiving the answer you wanted isn't the same as not
>> receiving an answer.
>>
>
> I very much appreciate your patience with me, and I am grateful for it.
> The question is I believe very important, for I would like to avoid
> submitting a new version of the package only to be told that I did
> something wrong.
>
> As so many other packages seem to have a lot of flexibility in compiling
> the citation file, what I am inquiring is: will I be prosecuted for
> submitting a new version which doesn't include all the authors in the
> citation file, especially since the other author is no longer contributing?
> (let's say I will provide a single author, published journal article,
> referring specifically to this package).
>

I am not part of CRAN, as I prefaced my initial response with, so I can't
speak to "prosecution". You will have to wait for them to respond (again)
for a definitive answer to that. I do think, however, that if you did this
specifically to disenfranchise your previous collaborator you would be
morally in the wrong, and substantially so.



>
> The work of the other author is duly acknowledged in his position in the
> authors' list.
> As I previously wrote, citing Dusa and Other (2015) implies equal citation
> rights for unequal work, a thing that I am uncomfortable with. There is a
> huge amount of work being involved in this subsequent version, to which the
> former author didn't contribute anything at all...
>

It really doesn't imply this at all, at least to me (and I don't think I'm
alone here).  In most authorship-listing schemes first author is the one
who did the most direct work (wrote the draft, in the case of an article).
On the other hand, citing Dusa (2015) implies NO work by Other in the
entity being cited. That is clearly and concretely not the case.

I will leave you with this, which may sound like a personal attack but I
assure you it is not: I myself would not consider collaborating with you on
a project given your apparent attitude towards the contributions of people
no longer actively working on projects you own.

Best,
~G


>
> Best wishes,
> Adrian
>
> --
> Adrian Dusa
> University of Bucharest
> Romanian Social Data Archive
> Soseaua Panduri nr.90
> 050663 Bucharest sector 5
> Romania
>



--
Gabriel Becker, PhD
Computational Biologist
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Genentech, Inc.

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Adrian Dușa
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Gabriel Becker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> [...]
>
>>
>> The work of the other author is duly acknowledged in his position in the
>> authors' list.
>> As I previously wrote, citing Dusa and Other (2015) implies equal
>> citation rights for unequal work, a thing that I am uncomfortable with.
>> There is a huge amount of work being involved in this subsequent version,
>> to which the former author didn't contribute anything at all...
>>
>
> It really doesn't imply this at all, at least to me (and I don't think I'm
> alone here).  In most authorship-listing schemes first author is the one
> who did the most direct work (wrote the draft, in the case of an article).
> On the other hand, citing Dusa (2015) implies NO work by Other in the
> entity being cited. That is clearly and concretely not the case.
>

That is another way of looking at things, but I don't necessarily agree
with you. It doesn't imply NO work, since that is duly recognised by the
presence of the Other in the authors' list.
And I have nevertheless changed my suggestion from Dusa (2015) with a
citation of a previous (older, 2007) article, one that laid the very
foundations for the package, and an article that the Other had also no
contribution at all.

Given that many other packages seem to have the liberty to do so, the
question is under what conditions do I have this liberty as well.

Best wishes,
Adrian


--
Adrian Dusa
University of Bucharest
Romanian Social Data Archive
Soseaua Panduri nr.90
050663 Bucharest sector 5
Romania

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: authorship and citation

Stephen Ellison
In reply to this post by Prof Brian Ripley
> > Is there a point at which the original developer should not stay on the author
> list?
>
> Authorship is not just about code.  For example, there are functions in R which
> have been completely recoded, but the design and documentation remain.
> Copyright can apply to designs and there is shading between
> inspiration and infringement.   And many of us believe that inspiration
> should be credited as a moral even if not a legal obligation.

"Once an author on CRAN, always an author on CRAN"* doesn't sound a bad maxim to work to.


*This statement should be cited** as
S L R Ellison, C L Dodgson, 'RE: [Rd] authorship and citation'. r-devel mailing list, 2015 with
Acknowledgements: B Ripley, R-Core, S Urbanek for helpful remarks

**following its own precepts :)


*******************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential. Any use, copying or
disclosure other than by the intended recipient is unauthorised. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately via +44(0)20 8943 7000 or notify [hidden email]
and delete this message and any copies from your computer and network.
LGC Limited. Registered in England 2991879.
Registered office: Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LY, UK
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
12