diff --git a/poster/README.md b/poster/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a4277a --- /dev/null +++ b/poster/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +We used gravit designer to create this poster, available at +https://www.designer.io/ + +The fonts are Roboto Sans, Slab, and for the url at the bottom of the page, Roboto Mono. diff --git a/poster/handout-side-1.gvdesign b/poster/handout-side-1.gvdesign new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2908e38 Binary files /dev/null and b/poster/handout-side-1.gvdesign differ diff --git a/poster/handout-side-1.svg b/poster/handout-side-1.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a1877a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/poster/handout-side-1.svg @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +Code for the futureFollow good practices from the start of the project; don’t build up technical debts that are hard to fix later. This generally means automated testing, writing documentation, instructions on how to run and maintain your code, and following modern development practices.Code deserves creditSoftware should be cited and acknowledged as scientific output. This means you should cite your sources as well as ask to be cited yourself.Availability over perfectionYou don’t have to be a computer scientist or professional software developer to write code, and your code doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be published. If code produces paper-ready results, the code too is paper-ready.When reviewing code be nice and provide constructive criticism. It is important to recognise that people make mistakes in good faith.There is always room to improve your skills — some intensive training courses such as Software Carpentry only take a day or two.Incorrect code results in incorrect sciencePublished code should be peer reviewed. Ensure that at least one reviewer understands code well enough to evaluate it critically, as well as domain experts who can comment on the specific scientific area.Open over closedIdeally scientific code should be released by the time of publication, under an open source licence, such that anyone may download, review, re-use and expand upon it.Manifesto PrinciplesPreambleCode is science. Historically, the work of scientists has been reviewed by their peers to validate it before being published. In modern times, computer code forms part of scientific analysis, but it is rarely shared or reviewed.This manifesto is for anyone who deals with code in a scientific setting, including publishers, researchers, research software engineers, and administrators.Code is Science ManifestoYo Yehudi, Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Selina Aragon, Software Sustainability Institute, Alexander Konovalov, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Computational Algebra, University of St Andrews. Poster illustrations by Yee Mun.We agree that scientific code needs to be treated as a primary research output \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/poster/handout-side-2.gvdesign b/poster/handout-side-2.gvdesign new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dbdbb9e Binary files /dev/null and b/poster/handout-side-2.gvdesign differ diff --git a/poster/handout-side-2.svg b/poster/handout-side-2.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..776d6cd --- /dev/null +++ b/poster/handout-side-2.svg @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +Code is Science ManifestoPledge support (or volunteer!) atcodeisscience.com/manifestoOpen over closedIncorrect code results in incorrect scienceCode for the futureAvailability over perfectionCode deserves creditScientific code needs to be treated as a primary research output \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/poster/poster.gvdesign b/poster/poster.gvdesign index aa6207d..41f6bb6 100644 Binary files a/poster/poster.gvdesign and b/poster/poster.gvdesign differ diff --git a/poster/poster.svg b/poster/poster.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..125ce1d --- /dev/null +++ b/poster/poster.svg @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +Code for the futureFollow good practices from the start of the project; don’t build up technical debts that are hard to fix later. This generally means automated testing, writing documentation, instructions on how to run and maintain your code, and following modern development practices.Code deserves creditSoftware should be cited and acknowledged as scientific output. This means you should cite your sources as well as ask to be cited yourself.Availability over perfectionYou don’t have to be a computer scientist or professional software developer to write code, and your code doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be published. If code produces paper-ready results, the code too is paper-ready.When reviewing code be nice and provide constructive criticism. It is important recognise that people make mistakes in good faith.There is always room to improve your skills — some intensive training courses such as Software Carpentry only take a day or two.Incorrect code results in incorrect sciencePublished code should be peer reviewed. Ensure that at least one reviewer understands code well enough to evaluate it critically, as well as domain experts who can comment on the specific scientific area.Open over closedIdeally scientific code should be released by the time of publication, under an open source licence, such that anyone may download, review, re-use and expand upon it.Manifesto PrinciplesPledge your support atcodeisscience.com/manifestoPreambleCode is science. Historically, science has been reviewed by its peers to validate it before being published. In modern times, computer code forms part of scientific analysis, but it is rarely shared or reviewed.This manifesto is for anyone who deals with code in a scientific setting, including publishers, researchers, research software engineers, and administrators.Code is Science ManifestoYo Yehudi, Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Selina Aragon, Software Sustainability Institute, Alexander Konovalov, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Computational Algebra, University of St Andrews. Poster illustrations by Yee Mun.Through working with scientific code, we agree that it needs to be treated as a primary research output \ No newline at end of file