-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adding new simulation engines #21
Comments
Hello, Very nice Leopold. Maybe EPW could be added (Google scholar 'EPW Giustino' returns 149 citations for 2020). Thanks, |
Thanks, Samuel! As you are one of the code authors, would you mind opening a PR to add EPW to https://github.com/ltalirz/atomistic-software/blob/master/src/data/codes.json? I think it would fit into the S=Spectroscopy category (that, by the way, is the least populated and least well-defined; probably misses out on a couple of other codes). No need to add the citation numbers; I'll take care of that. |
Below a point raised by @jeffhammond via email + a follow-up
The "code name" + "key author" approach is somewhat of a historical relict from the list created by Luca Ghiringhelli but there also is some thought behind it. While the "code name"-only approach would work for certain engines with highly unique names (NWchem is one of them), it would not work for other codes (think: ORCA, etc.). I think a first improvement over the "code name" + "key author" is indeed to include at least the first authors of recent review articles via OR, which I've now done for nwchem. However, I'm also open to discussing dropping the author from the query altogether, as well as any other suggestions for improving the general query approach. P.S. One could argue that maintaining a list of review papers per code and simply summing up the corresponding citations would be superior to the current approach (even if then one will be double-counting some citations). The main drawbacks of this approach are that it significantly increases the maintenance burden, and that it would no longer be possible to direct users to the results of the query used to obtain the citation results (since multiple queries would be needed). If Google Scholar’s API ever adds support for combining multiple “cited by” queries into one, I will consider switching. |
Hello Leopold, GPUMD (https://github.com/brucefan1983/GPUMD) has a citation of 66 in 2023 according to Google scholar search for the very unique search term of "GPUMD". GPUMD is a general-purpose molecular dynamics simulation software based on classical potentials (empirical and machine-learned). I wonder if it can be added to the list under type |
Hi @brucefan1983 , thanks for the suggestion! Would you like to open a pull request? Adding the metadata to the codes.json is enough, I will take care of collecting the citation data For an example, see https://github.com/ltalirz/atomistic-software/pull/169/files |
Hello Leopold, thank you very much for your quick response and confirmation. I have created a PR to add GPUMD. See #186 |
This issue tracks information regarding the addition of new simulation engines.
Before suggesting a new engine, please make sure that
Citations are queried on Google Scholar, with typical search terms being the name of a code + the name of a key author (e.g.: VASP Kresse).
There is an actively maintained watchlist of codes that do not yet meet the relevance criterion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: