namurphy
commented
11 months ago Here's the pre-check to help figure out if there's anything we need to do before starting peer review:
Editor in Chief checks
Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you to work on them before the review process begins.
Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements below.
- [x] Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
- [x] The package imports properly into a standard Python environment
import package-name.
- [x] The package imports properly into a standard Python environment
- [x] Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
- [x] Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
- [x] User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
- [x] Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
- [x] API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
- [ ] Core GitHub repository Files
- [x] README The package has a
README.mdfile with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions. - [ ] Contributing File The package has a
CONTRIBUTING.mdfile that details how to install and contribute to the package. - [x] Code of Conduct The package has a
Code of Conductfile. - [x] License The package has an OSI approved license. NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
- [x] README The package has a
- [ ] Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the
YAMLheader of the issue (located at the top of the issue template). - [x] Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
- [x] Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
- [x] Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
- [ ] Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
- [ ] Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
-
[ ] Initial onboarding survey was filled out We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. :raised_hands: Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. :raised_hands:
pyOpenSci is a new organization is working to build community partnerships with other projects in the scientific Pythoniverse. It offers Python package peer review and is working to create a community-driven Python packaging guide. There are also emerging partnerships between pyOpenSci and the Python in Heliophysics Community (which we are part of) and Astropy. With respect to Astropy, there's been an effort to have the affiliated package approval process be aligned with pyOpenSci peer review; we could probably build off of this. I've also found it to be a great community to be a part of.
The main bottleneck towards PlasmaPy undergoing the pyOpenSci peer review process is limited time and capacity among our core contributors. I'm also thinking that it would make sense to wait until Astropy gets settled into being part of pyOpenSci, since we might be able to adopt the same process for becoming an affiliated package that Astropy ends up doing.
This is also something that we'd need a coordinating committee vote for.