similar to: citation of a task view

Sorry for the off-topic question, but I know there are some talented LaTeX users out there. Which bibliography style gives only the year in text citations (e.g "for further details, see Anderson (1992)" )? Thanks Jason -- Indigo Industrial Controls Ltd. http://www.indigoindustrial.co.nz 64-21-343-545 jasont at indigoindustrial.co.nz

(xposted to bioc-devel and r-devel as I feel it is relevant to both communities) As someone whose body of work is likely to consist mostly of infrastructural packages and research directly in computing I wholeheartedly agree with Kasper's suggestion that we as a community should work to provide and use package citations. I borrow heavily from existing work in terms of both concept and

It has been a while since I've announced a pandoc release on this list, so here's an update. The latest version of pandoc supports conversion of markdown to a host of other formats, including * HTML formats: XHTML, HTML5, and HTML slide shows using Slidy, S5, or DZSlides * Word processor formats: Microsoft Word docx, OpenOffice odt * Ebooks: EPUB * Documentation formats: DocBook, GNU

[Using R 2.8.0 / Win XP / ] I just added a CITATION file to the heplots package--- appended below. From the document ion for ?CITATION, there can be *one or more* calls to citEntry() within the CITATION file, and each should produce an object of class "citation". With just a single citEntry(), citation produces the expected output, with BibTeX entry: >

Hi, I use Sweave extensively in my consulting work. When submitting reports to the scientists I work with I like to use the citation function to reference any packages I use, to give proper acknowledgement. I noted in the documentation that a citation inherits from bibentry, and indeed, > citr<- citation() > class(citr) [1] "citation" "bibentry" However, following

utils::citation() offers the option auto=(NULL|TRUE) to obtain the citations for a package from the package DESCRIPTION file or a CITATION file, as described below: |auto| a logical indicating whether the default citation auto-generated from the package 'DESCRIPTION' metadata should be used or not, or |NULL| (default), indicating that a 'CITATION' file is used if it exists, or

== Summary == * Problem: BibTeX entries extracted from R packages via citation() require too much manual editing to be of general use. * Proposal: Date: fields should be made mandatory in package DESCRIPTION files, perhaps beginning with warnings from R CMD check * Proposal: Package authors should be encouraged to use a (new) Contributors: field in the DESCRIPTION file rather than packing all

Hola a tod@s, Hace poco en la lista se discutieron algunas aproximaciones para determinar la distribución de probabilidad que potencialmente podrían haber generado los datos (ver [1]) y una de ellas fué el AIC. Haciendo uso del programa enviado por Pablo Verde (ver [1]), estos son los resultados para mis datos: weibull , AIC = 69839.44 exponential , AIC = 79488.77 gaussian , AIC = 69413.03

Hadley, With all due respect, I'm not sure what exactly your deliniation between author and contributor is, but from what I can tell I don't agree with it. >From the blogpost regarding your new purrr package: "Purrr wouldn?t be possible without Lionel Henry <https://github.com/lionel->. He wrote a lot of the package and his insightful comments ..." And yet he is

On Thu, 30 May 2019, Dr Gregory Jefferis wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I would like to provide a CITATION file for my package nat.nblast [1]. > > I have the correct citation in BibTeX format [2]. How can I convert this > BibTeX to the format needed by R for a package CITATION file (I have a > lot of other packages needing citations ...). (1) You can use read.bib() from the

Dear R-devel, Question: How can I get Sweave to recognize that the \thebibliography section is already created and generate the vignette pdf with a single pass? Or is there a way to let R CMD build know that Sweave needs to be run twice? If (1) is not possible, any suggestions how to auto-generate a crude generic bibtex .bib file from my existing document? Background: I maintain

Hi Gabriel, On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote: > [...] > > At the very least, this is seems to be a flagrant violation of the > *spirit* of the CRAN policy, which AFAIK is intended to enforce > acknowledgement of the contributions of all copyright holders in the > package. The fact that you are trying to bypass the policy by

>>>>> Zhian Kamvar <zkamvar at gmail.com> >>>>> on Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:26:37 -0500 writes: > Hi, I believe the function utils::citation() will fail if > the package specified has two or more citation entries in > the current R-devel. The following error is issued: > 'missing' can only be used for arguments > I

Simply advice: The former co-author contributed, so he is still author and probably copyright holder and has to be listed among the authors, otherwise it would be a CRAN policy violation since even if he does not develop further on, he developed parts of the so far existing package (if you talk about a CRAN package). I am not a lawyer, hence I cannot speak for copyright/license stuff in

> > I read the CRAN policies twice, and there > > is no official guideline on how to compile the citation. The policies are about copyright and IP, not credited authorship. There's overlap but they are not the same thing. You can see whether someone is a copyright holder by referring to the license you had and whether there is any of their content remaining. But that might not

My subject line refers to a thread from June 2005 where I found explanations from Uwe Ligges and Friedrich Leisch as to what is intended by the R citation recommended within the software. Forgive me if I missed some points within the thread but when I found myself circling through messages I had already read, I stopped trying to follow it. I understand and mostly agree with how the R citation is

Adrian, Responses inline On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Adrian Du?a <dusa.adrian at unibuc.ro> wrote: > Hi Gabriel, > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> > wrote: > >> [...] >> >> At the very least, this is seems to be a flagrant violation of the >> *spirit* of the CRAN policy, which AFAIK is intended to

On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote: > As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package? > > Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under > which it was released. Then the original package, by both authors, still > exists (and a final version could point to the new one) and the new > package, citing the previous version

I'm pleased to announce the release of pandoc version 1.0.0.1. Pandoc is a general text markup format converter. In addition to strict markdown and an extended markdown syntax (including tables, footnotes, definition lists, enhanced ordered lists, LateX math, etc.), pandoc can read HTML, LaTeX, and reStructuredText. It can write HTML, LaTeX, ConTeXt, DocBook, RTF, OpenDocument XML, ODT,

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> wrote: > > [...] > > To clarify, legally, you can fork a standard GPL package and make any > changes you want, including changing authors fields etc. If you don't own > copyright for the entire work then you cannot change the license without > consent from the other copyright holders,