The academic community seems to judge the validity and significance of any contribution by the number of papers published and the number of citations they get. To find funding, to get credit, you have to publish or perish. However, the natural output of software development tends not to be an article (people who confuse articles and documentation do a poor job of both, IMHO).
While I believe that this policy is harmful for the quality of research, I also know that I cannot fight it, and chances are that many other are in my situation. As such, we need to publish scientific papers about the scientific softwares that we develop (such as Mayavi, or scikit-learn, as far as I am concerned). On the other hand, as an editor of the Scipy conference proceedings, I have found that the process of writing a paper on software work and going through peer review can be greatly beneficial to the software. Indeed, it forces authors to do a thorough review of the prior work, and to clearly identify the purpose of the project. Also, such an article can only be much shorter than a user manual, thus it forces the authors to identify the key concepts of their software, and explain them clearly. As a result, it helps finding design and usability flaws and gaining insight on how the user manual can be structured.
A major challenge to publishing is that most of the highly-ranked journals tend to disregard software works, unless they are very specific to a scientific problem, which actually makes them less useful to the complete ecosystem. Deeply rooted in the minds of the editors and the reviewers, there tends to be the idea that developing software is easy compared to doing experiments or proofs. In addition, these top-notch scientists are not always the most qualified to judge the quality of software, as they have most often never worked in a major software project. The good news is that this is slowing changing with the creation of software tracks in specialized journals, and the development of new journals focused on scientific software.
Journals for publishing about interdisciplinary scientific software
In my opinion, interdisciplinary scientific software such as numpy, the GSL, octave, scilab, matplotlib, or Fenics, are the most valuable projects, as they provide foundations to build science in the open. The challenge that these projects have to face are not only algorithmic or computational, but also deal with providing good user interfaces, or developing and catering for very large communities of users. These problems are considered as solved in a scientific context, as they have all been solved at least once, often quite successfully by commercial products such as Matlab. As a result, it is hard to get some funding for these projects unless there is a political reason behind the funding, and IMHO politics tend to produce bad software. Publishing high-profile articles on interdisciplinary scientific software is thus hard, but critical. For this we need journals that accept software papers, but are not only read by researchers in CS or IT departments.
A couple of years ago, some of us made a review of where it was possible to publish truly wide-scope scientific software, and we found that there was pretty much no option. It’s crazy to see that things have still not changed much, and that all lot of major general-purpose widely-used projects, like the one I cited above, have never been acknowledged by a publication.
- Computing in Science and Engineering: a joint publication between the AIP (American Institute of Physics) and the IEEE, it is a magazine-style journal and it can be seen in many coffee rooms of computational-science departments. Thanks to that it gets a lot of reading, but the articles cannot be too technical (which might be a good thing) and there is room for only few articles.
- Open Research Computation (ORC): A newly-created journal, with a focus on making computational research reproducible. As such, it favors papers about open source scientific software with good software-engineering. Open access.
In addition to these software-friendly journals, some large-scope journals on computational science sometime accept software papers, though software production fall out of their scope:
Journals for publishing domain-specific scientific software
It is usually easier to publish a domain-specific software contribution, as you can claim that you have solved a well-identified scientific roadblock. Until recently, it was hard to get such papers in the best journals of a community, but things have been changing.
- Computer Physics Communications: for algorithms and packages solving numerical and computational problems related to physics.
- Bioinformatics: accepts software papers on biology-related problems.
- ACM Transactions On Mathematical Software (TOMS): a journal of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), thus with a focus on algorithms.
- Journal of statistical Software: this journal comes from the community of people who wrote the R language. They know that open source scientific software is hard and important. Open access.
- Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), Machine Learning Open Source (MLOSS) track: reference journal in the machine learning community, the MLOSS track cares strongly about documentation, packaging and usability of the software. Open access.
- Computers & Geoscience: computational geoscience journal that accepts software papers (thanks Michael Aye for the pointer).
- Computer Applications in Engineering Education: a journal about education with computers. AFAIK, no special focus on open source or software-engineering quality (thanks Doug Holton for the pointer).
- NeuroInformatics and Frontiers NeuroInformatics (open access): two journals on computer-related issues in neuroscience that accept software papers. I have the feeling that the latter is a bit warmer to open source that the former (thanks Andrew Davison for the pointer).
- Computers and Electronics in Agriculture: for publishing agriculture-related software (thanks John B. Cole for the pointer).
I should stress that, in my opinion, journals such as PLOS computational biology, or the Journal of Computational Physics, or are not great venues for software papers, as they tend to emphasize what I would call proof of principle, and not packaged and maintained software.
I have the feeling that there is need for more communication on scientific software. The list above is, of course, incomplete. If you have extra ideas, please do not hesitate to contact me.
As a conclusion, I would like to point out that conferences are also a good way to advertise scientific software. You may even get approached by the editor of a journal to open the door for a journal article. Last year I was at ESCO, a coupled problems conference, and there was a track on Python in science. All in all the conference was a huge amount of fun, and I learned a lot on practical aspects of numerical methods, given the amount of numerical computing geeks that were around. The same community is organizing FEMTEC in Lake Tahoe (California) this year. If you are in any field related to FEM or multiphysics, you should consider it.
Update: added links suggested by Doug Holton, Michael Aye, Andrew Davison, and John B. Cole