I think "not scientifically novel" is probably not the right choice of words: engineering is "science", and I would include software engineering in this. If it's not novel on the software engineering side, and not novel on the underlying algorithm, then what's the point of publishing a paper?
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 4:25:57 AM UTC+11, Isaiah wrote: > > If the work is "I translated Conventional Algorithm Foo into Julia" then >> it probably wouldn't be that interesting > > > There have been some pushes to create a peer-reviewed publication path for > software that is not necessarily scientifically novel. I'm not familiar > with any in computational physics, but in statistics there is the Journal > of Statistical Software, and in neuroscience/imaging there are things like > the Insight Journal and the "Frontiers in..." imprints which have > software-specific tracks. > > It is a difficult thing to evaluate though, because aside from the > labor-intensiveness and other general problems of software review, the > value of a scientific software contribution may only be obvious after > several years of refinement and organic growth. This has been a problem for > Julia and other software creators based in academia, when seeking grant > funding. > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Jiahao Chen <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I second what Stefan and Erik have said. If the work is new and original >> regardless of its implementation in Julia, then just submit it to where you >> would ordinarily submit such work. If the work is "I translated >> Conventional Algorithm Foo into Julia" then it probably wouldn't be that >> interesting, unless possibly you demonstrate how your implementation makes >> special use of unique language features, in which case that could be >> highlighted as the main point of the work. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jiahao Chen >> Staff Research Scientist >> MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory >> >> >
