5 ms·
The article appears to have been written in 2018, and just published recently. From the Discussion section: > SciPy has a strong developer community and a mass
by kingbirdy 7y ago
The article appears to have been written in 2018, and just published recently. From the Discussion section:
> SciPy has a strong developer community and a massive user base. GitHub traffic metrics report roughly 20,000 unique visitors to the source website between 14 May 2018 and 27 May 2018 (near the time of writing)
SciPy 1.0 was released towards the end of 2017, so that timing makes sense for a 1.0 retrospective. Not sure why it took so long to get published.
- Areading314 7y agoPeer review takes a long time. There is often back and forth among reviewers, who are volunteers and not beholden to deadlines.
- Fomite 7y agoAlso it takes a long time to get from acceptance to "in print", especially for something that, with all due respect to the SciPy team (love you guys...), isn't time urgent.
- lrem 7y agoI have on my desk a 2017 best paper award, for a paper printed in 2016, submitted 2015, being an extended version of a 2013 paper for a problem we solved in 2012. Academic publishing is like that.
- MrEldritch 7y agoThis is a large part of why (at least in the deep learning field, which I'm more familiar with) scientific publishing takes place more or less exclusively through ArXiv, because the field has been moving fast enough that while peer-reviewed papers are also published, by the time they come out they're long obsolete. (Largely forgoing peer review as a scientific field is, however, not without problems. To say the least.)
- sjvdwalt 7y agohttps://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10121 https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10121 It took us a long time (too long!) to construct that manuscript. Like SciPy itself, it was written primarily in the spare time of contributors with full time jobs. Glad to see it out there, though!