MSC-2020 -- Class 52: Convex and Discrete Geometry -- CAS Citations from 2000 to 2021

[jplab]

Dear all,

During the Summer, I was curious to know more about the impact of Sage in my research area (MSC2020-52: Convex and Discrete Geometry).

If I recall correctly, around 2010-11 was the integration of ppl as a backend for polyhedral computations, and it more or less also corresponds to the first citation of Sagemath in MSC2020-52. Ten years after, how were Sagemath and other software cited? Can Sage be considered a trusted and used software for research in Convex and Discrete Geometry?

TL;DR: In 10 years, Sagemath went from 0% share of the CAS citations to 33% in 2021 and seems to continue growing as of 2022.

I take this opportunity to thank the Sage community and the developers of related softwares integrated for this Huge effort and to let you know of the positive comments that I receive form the research community in MSC-52. THANK YOU SO MUCH!

If you are interested in a deeper analysis, I produced detailed graphics and provide the raw data in a Jupyter notebook on my webpage:

https://jplab.github.io/sage_cite.html

Best wishes,
J-P

[kcrisman]

I take this opportunity to thank the Sage community and the developers of related softwares integrated for this Huge effort and to let you know of the positive comments that I receive form the research community in MSC-52. THANK YOU SO MUCH!

If you are interested in a deeper analysis, I produced detailed graphics and provide the raw data in a Jupyter notebook on my webpage:

https://jplab.github.io/sage_cite.html

Great post! 

[Travis Scrimshaw]

Indeed, it is not only great to see that Sage is increasing in the number of citations* but also the total number of papers citing mathematics software.

Best,

Travis

* In algebraic combinatorics, I sometimes notice that people give an acknowledgement that they have used Sage to help with their paper without actually citing Sage. This makes it harder for simple data mining tools to pick up I think. I also know of some papers that have used Sage to construct examples without even an acknowledgement... So there work to do on making sure the broader math community does properly cite (or at least acknowledge) the use of a CAS. (As I say this, I think I forgot to cite Mathematica in one of my papers that one of my coauthors used somewhat extensively...)

[Thierry]

Hi,

let me take the opportunity to promote the use of the get_systems
function from sage.misc.citation which allows to see and acknowledge
which upstream packages were used by Sage for some computation, e.g.

sage: from sage.misc.citation import get_systems
sage: R.<x,y> = PolynomialRing(QQ)
sage: I = R.ideal([R.random_element(), R.random_element()])
sage: get_systems('I.groebner_basis()')
['Singular']

Ciao,
Thierry

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/dc80e2fa-a1d8-4fc4-832f-82746b8193d8n%40googlegroups.com.

[kcrisman]

let me take the opportunity to promote the use of the get_systems
function from sage.misc.citation which allows to see and acknowledge
which upstream packages were used by Sage for some computation, e.g.

+1