Description
There's a set of related questions here:
- When someone "cites HARK", how should we encourage them to do so?
- When someone "cites HARK", how do we discover that they've done so?
- How should we refer to and display HARK-derivative items, especially REMARKs? Should REMARKs have DOIs?
1: Chris suggested in an email, and I agree, that we should set up something like AstroPy's acknowledging.html page as our solution to question 1. Chris thinks we should use the SciPy proceedings paper as the reference, which is fine by me. (Currently, the closest thing we have to this is an this autogenerated citation in Zenodo, which I dislike relying on since it will change with every major release of HARK.)
2: Right now we do Google Scholar searches for "econ-ark" and the two DOIs on Zenodo. If we settle on the SciPy paper, for instance, we can search for that instead of the Zenodo DOIs, although we probably still want to keep an eye out on "econ-ark". Google Scholar is someone limited in the references it finds so it would be nice to be able to access Web of Science as well.
3: This overlaps with an existing discussion we've been having about how REMARKs work - how we should store/tag/display them, what the process for adding a new REMARK should be. This issue has a proposed process for adding REMARKs, and there's an email thread about how best to display REMARK metadata (in Zotero, on the website itself via a content management system, etc.)
Chris mentioned having a few REMARKs ready to be added soon. Hopefully we can come up with an initial process soon and try it out with the new REMARKs.