You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When using the best-of list, I noticed that many of the libraries do not have a clear source paper introducing themselves. To improve the transparency and credibility of the list, I suggest adding the DOI of the source paper to each library entry, if available. Additionally, it would be useful to consider adding citations as a supplementary metric to evaluate the impact and influence of each library.
By adding DOIs and citations, users can easily access the original research paper and verify the claims and performance metrics of each library. This would also help to promote best practices in research and encourage more open and transparent development of scientific software.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When using the best-of list, I noticed that many of the libraries do not have a clear source paper introducing themselves. To improve the transparency and credibility of the list, I suggest adding the DOI of the source paper to each library entry, if available. Additionally, it would be useful to consider adding citations as a supplementary metric to evaluate the impact and influence of each library.
By adding DOIs and citations, users can easily access the original research paper and verify the claims and performance metrics of each library. This would also help to promote best practices in research and encourage more open and transparent development of scientific software.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: