Citing FluCoMa tools

How does one cite the FluCoMa tools if not citing a specific paper written by the team?

Would it just be like:

FluCoMa tools [Computer Software]. (2020). Retrieved from Beta02 is here, with multithreading!

or is there a preference for the project to be cited another way? If there was a github I could cite that :^)

I personally prefer citing the presentation paper as this is good for traffic of ideas underlying too. This is what most people do in academic papers, for instance for the HIRT @a.harker and I published.

In this case it would be this:
https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publications/from-collections-to-corpora-exploring-sounds-through-fluid-decomp

1 Like

Cool, thanks! Attempting a paper for later this year that will feed into my writing up year in 2021.

1 Like

And one more!

What are the issues around citing this forum?

Is it possible/allowed? What format do you want if so?

It is allowed indeed, as it is public. @weefuzzy is the proper humanities academic, so he will know how he would prefer it to be referred to and cited.

The format should be consistent with whatever citation style you’re using, or do I miss the point of your question? If you want a title, something like ‘FluCoMa discussion board’ should suffice: the critical point of URL citations is just to get the URL right (and, of course, provide a last visited date if your style demands it). If you’re citing the whole board, then authorship is probably the FluCoMa project. If you’re citing a post, then the authorship is the post author (meatworld name if published, username otherwise).

As for citing the tools: sometimes it will make sense to cite the software directly rather than a position paper. Once we’re fully public, the codebase will get a versioned Digital Object Indentifier (DOI).

2 Likes