deletions | additions       diff --git a/Introduction.tex b/Introduction.tex  index a639e6a..83fe7e1 100644  --- a/Introduction.tex  +++ b/Introduction.tex 
...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1915  Finally, as we push for more researchers to publish their software in order to make research more reproducible and reuse more software, we need realize that one of the most common reasons for not sharing software is shame. Before we force researchers to make code public, we need to provide them with resources to learn how to write good code.   With these goals in mind, and motivated by a number of discussions during the .Astronomy 6 conference, we created a survey to explore the software habits of astronomers. This survey was also inspired by a similar inquiry into the software use of researchers as universities in the UK carried out by the Software Sustainability Institute \href{(http://www.software.ac.uk/blog/2014-12-04-its-impossible-conduct-research-without-software-say-7-out-10-uk-researchers#comment-14813}{(Hettrick et al., 2014, hereafter the SSI survey)}. See also http://wl.figshare.com/articles/1243288/embed?show_title=1.  We adopt many of the questions of the SSI survey and discuss similarities and differences between their results and ours. The SSI survey defined software as: “Software that is used to generate, process or analyse results that you intend to appear in a publication (either in a journal, conference paper, monograph, book or thesis). Research software can be anything from a few lines of code written by yourself, to a professionally developed software package. Software that does not generate, process or analyse results - such as word processing software, or the use of a web search - does not count as ‘research software’ for the purposes of this survey.”