We know that software is important in research, and some of us in the scholarly communications community, for example, in FORCE11, have been pushing the concept of software citation as a method to allow software developers and maintainers to get academic credit for their work: software releases are published and assigned DOIs, and software users then cite these releases when they publish research that uses the software.
The FORCE11 Software Citation Working Group has published the results of its review of existing community practices, using a consolidated set of Software Citation Principles [@https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.86] to encourage the adoption of software citation across disciplines. Supporting citation is part of DataCite’s core mission and this extends to software citation.
This week most of the DataCite staff is attending the Force16 conference in Portland, Oregon. Force16 brings together a large group of people who either already work with DataCite in one way or another, or are doing interesting projects of relevance to DataCite. ImpactStory is a non-profit that helps scientists learn where their research is being cited, shared, saved and more.
The following is a guest post by Daniel S. Katz, cross-posted from his blog. After a number of general discussions in the research communication community, mostly focused on software citation, and then a few separate discussions with Anita Bandrowski and Martin Fenner, it’s become clear to me that we need something like a group (perhaps hierarchical) object identifier (GROUPID), which is somewhat different than a DOI, or at least
This blog post provides more detail for a short presentation I will give today at the Software Credit Workshop in London.
