Separate publisher from archive/library

[moranegg]

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry I couldn't be present at the last call we had in March.

I was reading the notes from the March meeting and saw that in the stakeholder's list there is the Publisher stakeholder with two types of publishers:

Publisher: includes both traditional publishers that publish text and / or software papers as well as archives such as Zenodo that directly publish software.

IMHO, we need to separate publishers, where the authors are deliberately depositing software to be published and where the software is reviewed, and archives where the process is similar to libraries where the main goal is the preservation of software without review and in many cases without the intervention of the authors.

I would be happy to hear thoughts on the subject.

Cheers,

[danielskatz]

In the discussion about use cases in the software citation principles document, which is in the notes, Repository is a separate stakeholder from Publisher, so I agree with you, but also feel that we may have separated these already.

[moranegg]

I do agree that Repository should be a separate stakeholder, but I'm not sure that a library/archive has the same objectives of a development platform like GitHub. Including it under Repository or under Publisher is a different choice but isn't quite accurate.

[danielskatz]

GitHub is not a repository - as you say, it's a development platform (and social platform). I don't believe we've considered GitHub as a stakeholder in citation, as its role is mostly orthogonal to citation, though there are of course some connections.