added instructions about including a CITATION.cff file

[hm-raws]

This pull request resolves issue: #35

The following changes are made:

• Added instructions in the "Contributing a Method/Notebook" section and in the "Additional Detail" section

[Jez-Carter]

Thanks for the suggested changes, looks great 😊 I think it'd also be good to add some text on how to cite notebooks using CITATION.cff files in the README of the repository and the landing page of the published Jupyter book. See here for an example: https://edsbook.org/cite . You can just make the changes, commit and they'll immediately be added to the pull request.

[hm-raws]

Great idea, I hadn't thought of that! I'll also create a CFF for this repo if that's ok.

[hm-raws]

• Added a CITATION.cff file, content to be reviewed esp. licence
• Added a LICENSE.md file, a license should be chosen and attached to this repo
• Added some text on how to cite the whole book and individual notebooks in the README of the repository and a new page cite.md of the published Jupyter book, but not sure how to insert it into _toc.yml
• I could add a screenshot image of the button once it is live

[Jez-Carter]

Amazing, thanks Helen! With the license I'd personally assume an MIT one makes sense - what's your view @hm-raws & @mjhollaway ? I've added the cite.md file to the _toc.yml for correct rendering. You should be able to already add a screenshot of the 'Cite this repository' button, just go to your branch instead of main and it'll be there. 😊

[Jez-Carter]

Also, this conversation has got me thinking that it makes sense to aim to get the toolbox submitted to JOSS once it's out of its prototype stage, which will give it a DOI. Then if anyone ever wants to cite the toolbox project as a whole, whoever contributes to that short form paper will be included as authors. I think at some point it'd be good to have a discussion around what guideance to give to notebook contributors with respect to creating a DOI, what stage their work needs to be in to warrant doing this via Zenodo vs JOSS submission.

[hm-raws]

With the license I'd personally assume an MIT one makes sense - what's your view @hm-raws

Yep agree with MIT! Are all individual notebooks required to have the same license or is that still to be decided too?

[mjhollaway]

With the license I'd personally assume an MIT one makes sense - what's your view @hm-raws

Yep agree with MIT! Are all individual notebooks required to have the same license or is that still to be decided too?

I agree with Helen - MIT for the notebooks themselves and maybe OGL for the data itself (including simulated data). Think this is definitely a discussion to have on the governance deliverable for next year.