I think -fracpoly- may be an exception here--its theory and
application have been published pretty widely see for example:
Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Oct;28(5):964-74.
The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables
in epidemiology.
Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W.
and since I think the only implementation is in Stata, this article
or something similar should be cited every time it is applied in
analyses for publication. But since -fracpoly- is a statistical
algorithm which is used to draw inference about data, I think it is
in a slightly different category than the many incredibly useful
commands which are primary used for formatting and summarizing output.
A journal reviewer may be much more likely to ask for details and a
citation for the fractional polynomial method referred to in the paper
than how the format was formatted and summarized. As one who makes
heavy use of the many user written programs for formatting output. I
am sympathetic to this issue of not receiving "publication points" for
the amount of work put into creating these packages.
Tim
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Lachenbruch, Peter
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Roy brings up an interesting point. How are contributions to SSC or
> user-written programs in general evaluated in academe? In my
> experience, these would need to be refereed by one's peers to count
> academically. On the other hand there are many extremely valuable
> contributions from Roy and others that are easily worth many articles
> that I see in the journals I read.
>
> Perhaps it is time to consider this in various academic contexts. I
> think outreg2, fracpoly, mim, etc. are easily worth publication points,
> but I'll bet they haven't counted for much unless the author or
> department chair has been able to convince some higher powers (e.g. 2^n)
> of their worth.
>
> Please let me be wrong on this.
>
> Tony
>
> Peter A. Lachenbruch
> Department of Public Health
> Oregon State University
> Corvallis, OR 97330
> Phone: 541-737-3832
> FAX: 541-737-4001
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roy Wada
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:33 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: st: What is the proper way of modifying user-created
> ado-files. . .
>
>> as best they can. I am sorry that my recent programs, included in such
> a
>> remark, have not met your own standards.
>
> The points you make is well taken. My apologies to you and everyone if
> that seemed inappropirate. I hope it is obvious by now that is not
> what I meant. But let's not get sidetracked.
>
> Authorship in open source remains as it remains with traditional
> books, which is alway open. People can jump in any time they wish, of
> course. They are always very welcome, as you know, and I personally do
> not agree with people who says programs should or should not be
> written one way or another. The same thing was said about me if you
> may remember.
>
> You have noted that I am pushing in one direction. It would be nice if
> you would consider along the points I have made in making changes to
> FAQ. Note that these are suggestions. You can always say something is
> not a good idea, and did say so.
>
> Many people have been working to make this a respectable area of
> academia, including Kit and yourself. Some of things I have seen is
> contrary to that, as you must be aware.
>
> Roy
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
