Marking criteria ================ The following marking criteria should be sent to the students once all groups have been formed:: # 2 Page Paper - **Summary**: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided? [10%] - **A statement of need**: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is? - **State of the field**: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages? [10%] - **Quality of writing**: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)? [10%] - **References**: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax? [10%] # 15 Presentation - **Functionality**: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed? [10%] - **Documentation**: Does the documentation have a Tutorial, How to section, Reference and Explanation section? Is it clear? Is the source code clear? [10%] - **Modularity**: Is the code written in a modular way? [10%] - **Testing**: Is all code tested? [10%] - **Presentation**: Was the presentation format used appropriately? Were the visual aids appropriate? [10%] Note that this marking criteria has some overlap with the review criteria for the Journal of Open Source Software . Some examples of papers written for that journal that can be helpful are: - Matching: A Python library for solving matching games - Nashpy: A Python library for the computation of Nash equilibria Examples of presentations are available at: https://vknight.org/pop/