[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Proposal for MPRA guidelines]]
Christian Zimmermann wrote:
4. The paper must be complete and downloadable. Abstracts without a downloadable paper are not accepted.
Does Eprints collate multipart pdfs?
Volker may comment here
5. Software items must be checked for malware, such as viruses and trojans.
6. Software items should be runnable: not descriptions of software, and not pdfs of code.
On EconWPA, we had pdfs of codes, and even a paper on the software industry. One may want to include software descriptions, but this is a policy decision.
Maybe: 6. Software should be runnable. If instructions or descriptions are included, everything should be bundled in a single zip file. Would this be o.k.? Maybe instructions and descriptions are usefully included. Ekkehart
Ekkehart Schlicht wrote:
Christian Zimmermann wrote:
On EconWPA, we had pdfs of codes, and even a paper on the software industry. One may want to include software descriptions, but this is a policy decision.
Sometimes an author of software does not want to have an archive contain the program IF it is to be updated. Such was the case with Tony Hagan with First Bayes (he originally submitted the program and then asked for it to be removed anbd only to reference his pages).
It would be a loss to restrict the software to submittable programs - but that is your choice. Kit certainly has a software archive that does most of the job that MPRA would do for software. Bob
Maybe:
6. Software should be runnable. If instructions or descriptions are included, everything should be bundled in a single zip file.
Would this be o.k.? Maybe instructions and descriptions are usefully included.
Ekkehart
_______________________________________________ MPRA-run mailing list MPRA-run@lists.openlib.org http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mpra-run
-- Bob Parks bparks@wustl.edu Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208 Washington University One Brookings Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 Voice: (314) 935-5665 Fax: (314) 935-4156
Bob Parks wrote:
Sometimes an author of software does not want to have an archive contain the program IF it is to be updated. Such was the case with Tony Hagan with First Bayes (he originally submitted the program and then asked for it to be removed anbd only to reference his pages).
It would be a loss to restrict the software to submittable programs - but that is your choice. Kit certainly has a software archive that does most of the job that MPRA would do for software.
I did not know about Kit's archive. Should we drop software? An alternative would be to accept software only as a zip file. If the name of the zip file does not change, we can replace the old zip file by the new one and can update the metadata to take care of that change without having multiple versions in the archive. I did this on our department archive for some of my own software. But I think we should ask Kit and drop the software category, as it would be best not to duplicate effort. The additional advantage would be that we need not worry so much about viruses and trojans. Cheers Ekkehart
participants (2)
-
Bob Parks -
Ekkehart Schlicht