Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: RE: RE: re: What is the proper way of modifying user-created ado-files. . .


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: RE: re: What is the proper way of modifying user-created ado-files. . .
Date   Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:11:08 -0000

Thanks for the compliment!

This is a large and complicated issue. Some of us could swap personal
impressions and experiences at various levels, but there is an immediate
consequence for all who care about proper recognition of software
writing. Cite software articles and programs that were important for
your project in whatever form you can. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Lachenbruch, Peter

Certainly SJ articles would count as they are refereed.  My concern was
for people like Kit and Nick and Roy who contribute much more than SJ
articles and don't get the academic rewards due them. 

And I think Roy was particularly interested in mapping contributions of
user-written programs to academic brownie points.  If they are published
in SJ or somewhere else, the issue is handled.

In many of my articles, I include Stata code used for simulations, but
the bulk is the results not the code.

Christopher Baum

Tony says

Roy brings up an interesting point. How are contributions to SSC or  
user-written programs in general evaluated in academe? In my  
experience, these would need to be refereed by one's peers to count  
academically. On the other hand there are many extremely valuable  
contributions from Roy and others that are easily worth many articles  
that I see in the journals I read. Perhaps it is time to consider this  
in various academic contexts. I think outreg2, fracpoly, mim, etc. are  
easily worth publication points, but I'll bet they haven't counted for  
much unless the author or department chair has been able to convince  
some higher powers (e.g. 2^n) of their worth. Please let me be wrong  
on this.

It should be possible to get 'publication points' by describing one's  
work in a peer-reviewed article in the Stata Journal, all the more so  
that it is now listed in both Sci-Math and SSCI indices of Thomson. Of  
course, such an article is not just an expanded help file. I once  
wrote a seasonal unit root routine with Richard Sperling. Decent code,  
help file, examples, and set it aside. More recently Domenico Depalo  
wrote a very nice, academically respectable article about the theory  
of seasonal unit root testing, described the program he had written to  
perform those tests (which does what our hegy program does and more),  
and published it in SJ 9:3
(http://ideas.repec.org/a/tsj/stataj/v9y2009i3p422-438.html 
). It seems to me that such an article should receive as many  
'publication points' in most universities' evaluation processes as  
many papers that merely take existing software and exercise it to test  
a model -- particularly with SJ now in SSCI, which is a checklist item  
for many European institutions.

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index