The Brazilian referencing rules for software are useful. I am not aware that
failure to properly cite software used would be counted as copyright
infringement here though (although I think it would be a good idea to do
something along those lines). My view is that in general this is a failure
of the journal refereeing system in our field. I don't think I have ever
seen a referee or editor ask for a full citation to software used, although
they can be very pernickety about the precise form of references to
publications.
On the issue of gaining credit for software as an academic output, things
may be changing. The next UK Research Assessment Exercise accepts the
software itself as a valid form of research output and has proposed rules
for how this should be submitted along with other forms of 'non-print'
output such as designs and buildings.
Alan
Dear Dalton,
> Naturally the problem is structural. I (or indeed anyone) don't get
> any academic reward for software. That is publishing a piece of
> usable software takes as much effort as writing a book, but
> academically is worth less of a publication than a conference paper.
> Until people starting putting references to software used in papers
> (Dalton 1987 - Axman for example), then there will never be an
> academic incentive to share useable software.
In Brazil, software is protected by copyright laws exactly as a book
or paper (In most countries there are differences). It means that if
you used it on scientific work, you must make a citation to the
software in your papers, otherwise you may be infringing copyright.
Since you have written most space syntax software, I think that people
have not been making citations to you because they do not know how to
do it. Brazilian Citation Rules (ABNT) recommends:
Last_Name, First_Name, Year, "Software name in emphasis as a paper
title", Version, Registered (or unregistered) Software, City.
Available at: Site
Registered or unregistered status is because in Brazil you do not need
to register your software. A patent is almost optional - the software
is already protected as a book, picture or other copyrighted work.
Since this status refers only to Brazil, I replaced it for "Space
Syntax Software", examples:
Figueiredo, Lucas, 2002, Mindwalk, version 1.0, Space Syntax Software,
Recife. Available at: http://www.mindwalk.com.br
Dalton, Nicholas, 1987, Axman, version ?, Space Syntax Software,
London, Available at: http://www.spacesyntax.com
Brazilian scientific bodies also counts software as "technical works"
- I do not know if it has the same value of a paper, but it should do.
> Ovinity Ltd wrote webmap and was paid to do so by UCL( who also
> run/support the server).
>
> I'm trying to take research more seriously which means concentrating
> more on writing papers and less on writing useable software.
The problem is that it is hard and expensive (very expensive) to write
software. If you also include the costs of documentation (help,
manual), support and distribution (site) you may get a stratospheric
value. I have received some institutional support, but I have never
directly paid for writing Mindwalk. If I have done the same amount of
work for a commercial company, I would be able to finance my PhD.
I have written Mindwalk because it is mandatory in my research a
software implementation. I am not only using the current space syntax
techniques and measures but also I am developing new ones (continuity
lines and others).
However, I am very glad with how many people is taking use of
Mindwalk, and how it helped several students and researchers. I am
sure that you feel the same about your well known classics.
Best wishes!
Lucas Figueiredo
|