On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Christian D. Ott cott@tapir.caltech.edu wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On 10/21/2010 01:48 PM, Bruno Giacomazzo wrote:
Hi, in the meeting minutes I was not able to find what are the citations requested when using the GRHydro thorn. In a previous email Frank listed only this reference:
@Article{Baiotti:2010zf
this was apparently a glitch. If I remember correctly, we decided in the call to limit the number of papers to one per component (the most relevant one), since otherwise things become a bit impractical.
We decided to have two "levels" of citations that people can request/suggest for each thorn. Papers can either be "required", or "suggested". For various reasons we don't want to or cannot enforce anything, so we say "strongly suggest" instead of "required", but the idea remains the same.
Ultimately, it will of course be up to the authors of each thorn to decide what citations they expect. However, as Christian said, we think it would be impractical if one required several papers for each thorn, as this shouldn't turn into a way to fish for citations. We expect that there is usually a single paper that best explains the detailed physics and numerics behind a thorn, and this paper should be cited.
For GRHydro, I expect this will be "the Whisky paper".
For a letter, where space is constrained, it may be acceptable to cite only the Einstein Toolkit itself. This is one of the reasons we say "strongly suggest" instead of "required".
We will have to see what to do and how to react to papers which don't cite the numerical methods they use. In the end, I hope that our community will acknowledge the work that goes into not only writing, but also into testing and describing codes, by citing the papers that do this. Personally, I'm writing polite emails to the author I know best.
-erik
For GRHydro, which was originally based on the public version of Whisky, we decided to list the Baiotti et al. 2005 paper. We decided not to list the WhiskyMHD paper, simply, because GRHydro's MHD implementation is completely independent.
I hope this clarifies things.
- what should we do when submitting letters where we have to limit
the number of citations? Would a generic acknowledgment to the Einstein Toolkit (with reference to the web-page) be OK?
One should at least cite the most important components you used, i.e. the Isolated Horizon finder, if it is a crucial component etc. There is a plan for a computational science publication discussing the current components of the EinsteinToolkit. This may become the main reference for such short papers with little room for references. So not sure how exactly this will work out.
- is there
a policy on how to "react" if somebody make use of the Einstein toolkit in scientific papers without citing it?
You write an e-mail and yell at them.
Best,
- Christian _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@einsteintoolkit.org http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users