Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BeatLeJuce t1_isn6t8h wrote

What are you hoping to get out of this? Since you're not in academia anymore, why bother at all? Since for some reason you decided to do this, why not do it right. Your advisor seems to think that you have a chance to publish this at a good, community-relevant venue, which is heaps and bounds better than JOSS or JORS. Why, you ask? Well, a couple of reasons:

  1. Discoverability: I don't know who your end users are going to be, but I can almost guarantee you that they won't be reading JOSS or JORS. But they'll likely read their community's journals. Maybe even the OSS variants of it. So if you want to tell the world "look, I made something useful", don't publish in JOSS/JORS because you'll reach way more potential users by publishing in a journal your end users are going to actually read.

  2. Prestige: It will look so much better on every co-author's CV. You already have your PhD and don't need this right now, but your advisor likely cares because of this (and every other potential co-author). I mean, if you already have 10 NeurIPS publications, one JORS one might make you seem more well-rounded. Likewise if you're in Software Development now, it might actually be beneficial to demonstrate to employers that you're not just a theoretician. But in general, people in research will not take a JOSS publication as seriously.

  3. Valuation of your work: Very related to the previous point, but JOSS/JORS aren't were good research ends up. Scientifically, I'd rank it as low tier publication where you publish stuff that wasn't good enough to make it into a big journal. I.e., my first line of thinking would be "okay, the authors created something that wasn't good enough to make it into the software-edition of the journal in his field" (IME most ML adjacent fields have this). YMMV, this is just my very subjective and biased impression. I never actually checked out JOSS/JORS, but this is how I would judge this, and how I would assume others would judge this.

As others have said: if you just need a citeable artefact, there are quicker ways (arxiv or Zenodo). I see JORS/JOSS as a sort of middle-ground. It's nicer and better than just putting it on arxiv, but definitely not as impactful as a "proper" scientific publication.

14

[deleted] OP t1_issf3yt wrote

[deleted]

1

BeatLeJuce t1_isshboa wrote

I agree, though the one published in dedicated "software editions" is usually okay. But it's a question on what you're optimizing for. Scientific publications mostly optimize for good (or at least impressive) science and novelty, not software quality. But if you don't want to publish in scientific journals, why publish at all?

1