Question: How do you cite a tool that doesn't have a publication?
5
gravatar for novice
14 months ago by
novice580
United States
novice580 wrote:

FASTQC, for example, doesn't seem to have a publication associated with it. How would you cite it?

citation academic style • 6.1k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 13 months ago by Emily_Ensembl11k • written 14 months ago by novice580
6
gravatar for Bioaln
14 months ago by
Bioaln140
Slovenia
Bioaln140 wrote:

I suggest you use the author, date and link.

ADD COMMENTlink written 14 months ago by Bioaln140
6

How does this look?

Andrews S. (2010). FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Available online at: http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc

ADD REPLYlink written 14 months ago by novice580
1

Exactly - I've seen links used to cite blog posts; they should be useful for tools too.

ADD REPLYlink written 14 months ago by Ram11k
6
gravatar for Emily_Ensembl
13 months ago by
Emily_Ensembl11k
EMBL-EBI
Emily_Ensembl11k wrote:

Just to say, thank you for wanting to cite tools. From our investigations, we've found that over 2/3 of the papers that mention Ensembl do not cite our papers. No idea how many more than that use our stuff and don't even bother to mention us. It's as if people think that building a bioinformatic database or tool is not real science, so doesn't need acknowledgement. In science, citations are currency, and using someone's work without citing them is essentially theft.

ADD COMMENTlink written 13 months ago by Emily_Ensembl11k
1

Great point. However the reviewers of journals can also comment on the references. In principle they can use this power to enforce everyone to give proper credit. Is it the case? I don't know. So researchers are just part of the whole story..

ADD REPLYlink written 13 months ago by Ibrahim Tanyalcin630
1

But if 2/3 of the people writing papers think they don't need to cite databases or tools, then a similar 2/3 of reviewers probably have the same attitude. Or maybe 80% of both groups think you don't need to cite, and only by the small number of referees who think it's important pointing it out do we get the citation rate as high as 1/3.

ADD REPLYlink modified 13 months ago • written 13 months ago by Emily_Ensembl11k
1

2/3rds of my wetlab work never resulted in authorship either, and just like writing a tool i'm talking about months of work. It's certainly a lot easier to use FastQC or Ensembl datasets without acknowledgement than a BSc/Masters/PhD student -- particularly it if there's no 'proof' of usage in the paper ("The quality of our data... ...looked good based on a variety of metrics / ...compared favorably to other publicly available datasets.") -- however, I think it must have been Socrates who once said: "Don't hate the player, hate the game". More and more these days Science appears to be a 0-sum game - particularly to young scientists who after their PhD have only a 1 in 200 chance of becoming an independent researcher. Under those conditions, a mentality of "take as much credit as possible, and only hand it out where absolutely necessary" is an inevitability. I wish we could go back to the old-days, but I think it's more realistic that tool/service developers forget about asking nicely for people to do the right thing, and instead think of ways to ensure citations where tools where used and punishments if they don't. Alternatively, research like yours showing the disparity between use and citations needs to be done to really make it known how valuable services like Ensembl are to life sciences.

ADD REPLYlink written 13 months ago by John11k

Thank you for providing tools for all of us! I have nothing but respect for the people behind good, open source software.

ADD REPLYlink written 13 months ago by novice580

Note that journals often restrict the number of references included in the manuscript, making the "standard" tools/databases/repositories such as Ensembl the first victim.

ADD REPLYlink written 10 weeks ago by timdemeyerugent0
3
gravatar for genomax
14 months ago by
genomax28k
United States
genomax28k wrote:

You would cite the web link for the tool. Simon (author of FastQC) had suggested that in the past for FastQC.

ADD COMMENTlink modified 14 months ago • written 14 months ago by genomax28k
2
gravatar for Ibrahim Tanyalcin
14 months ago by
Belgium
Ibrahim Tanyalcin630 wrote:

I would also try to include the DOI into the citation. If the software is in biorxiv, it will already get a doi, else if the software is in Github, the owner of the repository can also acquire one from zenodo (https://zenodo.org/).

ADD COMMENTlink modified 10 weeks ago by Ram11k • written 14 months ago by Ibrahim Tanyalcin630
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 426 users visited in the last hour