joss
joss copied to clipboard
openjournals
Remove figshare form documentation
I removed figshare from the documentation as discussed on slack.
There is still one occurrence left here: https://github.com/diehlpk/joss/blob/b9c760c2ccb73fd4aeb7d94a769d9b114d31f42b/spec/models/paper_spec.rb#L158
I opened a discussion on slack, as I can't find the original discussion there, and would like to understand why we might make this change.
Rather than having different docs in different places, can we try to have consistent language. Maybe we could try to make the points that we want a repository that ideally supports software licenses, ORCIDs for authors, a version tag that matches the content (not just the number of deposits in the archive, etc.), and then say that Zenodo is an example of a repository that meets these goals, but that any r3data.org repository would be ok.
Some people are likely required to use institutional repositories as well.
What do you think?
Rather than having different docs in different places, can we try to have consistent language. Maybe we could try to make the points that we want a repository that ideally supports software licenses, ORCIDs for authors, a version tag that matches the content (not just the number of deposits in the archive, etc.), and then say that Zenodo is an example of a repository that meets these goals, but that any r3data.org repository would be ok.
Some people are likely required to use institutional repositories as well.
What do you think?
This sounds like a good solution! We should specifically point what a repo needs to support.
@jromanowska and @danielskatz it took a while but I did a new pass. Please have a look.