How to cite PyGMT

I used PyGMT to create some figures on a manuscript. I’d like to cite PyGMT (along with GMT, which was also used stand-alone). What should I cite? @leouieda I see you’ve got a few talks/posters.

Aside: With open-source software, I’m never sure whether to cite the first paper, or the most recent.

For GMT, you can find the citations at https://www.generic-mapping-tools.org/cite, bearing in mind that some of the modules have their own citation as well (e.g. surface, greenspline, etc). Since GMT is great in having had a paper out for almost every version, just cite whatever version you use, which is usually the latest (that would refer back to the older versions anyway). The current citation for GMT6 (in APA7 format) is:

Wessel, P., Luis, J., Uieda, L., Scharroo, R., Wobbe, F., Smith, W. H. F., & Tian, D. (2019). The Generic Mapping Tools Version 6. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems , 20 (11), 5556–5564. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GC008515

As for PyGMT, there are a couple of ‘old’ posters dating back to 2017/2018 at https://www.pygmt.org/dev/overview.html. There’s a new 2019 AGU one at https://www.leouieda.com/posters/agu2019.html which might be better. (Note to potential contributors: would be great to add this to the website).

On a side note, it might be time to get a proper PyGMT v0.1.0 release out, and make a citable Zenodo DOI link out of that, or even put in up on JOSS. The stars are certainly aligning themselves. Someone requested for a PyPI release at https://github.com/GenericMappingTools/pygmt/issues/414 and I’ve submitted a corrected manuscript out for open review yesterday with PyGMT made figures. I’d be keen to make this happen if the team is too :smile:

1 Like

Definitely in support of a PyPI / conda release!

Yes, definitely! We can release 0.1.0 out with a large warning that the API will change in the future. But there is no point in holding off until we figure Windows out.

When that’s done, we’ll archive the source on Zenodo for the DOI. JOSS might have to wait a bit since we might struggle with the review at the current state of the package. But that is the goal for the not too distant future (or maybe we can go for a G³ paper as well for wider reach).