-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
What would go in a 2.0 paper
- Discuss implementation details, tests with other implementations, show robustness, referring to externals tests such as comparison of PINT (which relies on
Time
) with standard pulsar timing package tempo2 [hamogu: To me seems to be a very important point, because this data-driven approach to software quality is still quite rare in astronomy. It would give a reference for the quality of a package not only for astropy users, but for the comparison packages as well.] We've done this type of comparison with different packages both for time and coordinates and to my knowlegde we might well be the first team to run the comparison over such a large number of packages using all sorts of languages. - Give update of new capabilities (enhancements of Quantity, modelling, Tables with time and coordinate columns, etc.) [MHvK: seems slightly premature]
- Show how astropy fits in a larger ecosystem (VO work, fits files, ...) [???]
(not all of these need to make it into the paper):
- Modeling
- SAMP
-
Cone searchdeprecated in v2.0 as moved out to astroquery - Upgrades to units/quantity (including using Numpy arrays)
- Table grouping
- New coordinate framework
- Convolution
- Coordinate benchmarks
- Brief discussion of the ambiguities of Galactic coordinates. (As part of a push to standardize?)
- Implementation of the Galactocentric coordinate frame
-
Analytic functionsin the process of being moved into modeling - The astropy-helpers framework and the package template for (affiliated) packages
- Organizational challenges and how we surmounted them (or didn't...)
- Would it be worth referring to any specific research that has used Astropy in a particularly interesting way?
- wcsaxes and other functionality from visualization for plotting
- bolometric mags in units
- major additions to statistics subpackage
- versioning of constants (pending it gets into v2.0)
Options:
- All contributors ever.
- All contributors after 2013 (paper I).
The first astropy papaer has over 200 citations and counting. In that sense it does a good job of giving academic credit to the early contributors, but not to the new contributors. Do we want one highly cited paper or dilute the citations? Options are:
- Ask people to cite only the most recent paper. [hamogu: My preferred option. Simple. Paper I has enough citations to be important. Gives credit to recent contributors.]
- Ask people to cite all papers. (Fine for now, gets messy in 2025 when we have paper VI).
- Ask people to cite paper I and the most recent.
There are precedents to all three strategies.
I think it might help show to a different set of astronomers that astropy is not just a nice new packages full of nifty stuff, but that it very much helps one stop worrying about whether, e.g., leap seconds are properly included, whether a particular transformation also works near the poles, etc. In this respect, it may also be useful to have some examples of external usage -- e.g., that using Time
the new pulsar timing package PINT "can already produce residuals from most "normal" timing models that agree with Tempo and Tempo2 to within ~10 nanoseconds." [1]
All the best,
Marten
[1] https://github.com/nanograv/PINT
We could consider asking people to cite all the papers up to the present, so e.g.
Astropy Collaboration (2013, 2015)
to try and avoid the citation dilation issue. Though I think we should think about what is more important - having one paper with 500 citations or five papers with 100 citations - the latter does a lot more for most people's h-index.