A PhD student has authored an R package that provides several functions for studying the size and shape of fossils. The package is an improvement over existing programs – it is faster, simpler, and free. Although she has already constructed a manual to accompany the package, she knows she cannot cite this manual as scholarly material in her field. She spends additional time preparing a traditional journal article describing the package and its use cases. However, the article is rejected from her discipline journals for being too technical and outside the scope of paleontology. Instead, she publishes it as a short piece for a software journal. Although she lists the paper on her resume, senior scholars in her field ignore the paper because it is not in a journal they recognize. The PhD student is further discouraged because although she has posted links to the manual, article, and package on her personal website, she finds few colleagues are switching to her improved method. The PhD student seeks advice from her dissertation advisor. Her advisor recommends that she should focus more on “real” material for her dissertation and drop her programming interest. Before she spends more time on her R-package, her PhD advisor wants to see proof that it is paying off for her academic career.