Citing oemof

In the README.RST we are only mentioning the code versioning via Zenodo DOI.

Should we add the paper on oemof within the README.RST and thus provide a possibility to cite both the code version and the general idea within the paper?

[c-moeller]

By the way: Did we so far agree that adding the oemof-paper or the respective pre-print into the README would improve the status quo? We could then start with that!

👍

[ckaldemeyer]

As far as I understand JOSS, the journal is more of a hack to make the actual code a (citable) publication. The JOSS paper is more of an abstract for the software and should be general enough to have new releases without having to update is. The only problem I see with this model is the list of authors. Significant contributions to the code will not make you appear in the JOSS paper. There has been a discussion about that topic at openjournals/joss#423, concluding that from time to time a new JOSS paper might be the way to proceed. Also not that a JOSS paper will cover one piece of software (e.g. TESPy) and not oemof as a whole.

Thanks for clarifying! I agree concerning the code contributions.

In summary, I do not see a huge advantage in having a JOSS publication over naming DOI:10.1016/j.esr.2018.07.001 more prominently.

Me neither. What about the others?

By the way: Did we so far agree that adding the oemof-paper or the respective pre-print into the README would improve the status quo? We could then start with that!