JOSS Paper - Githubissues

@Th3nn3ss if you'd like to read about the Journal of Open Source Software: https://joss.theoj.org/

The publication process is really straightforward once an editor is assigned and whoever is the editor can assign 2 reviewers. This may take a while, but after that the publication is really simple, free, and lots of Open Source Software have papers there.

Here's the submission requirements (I have checked the boxes for what I think we already have; pretty much everything!):

[x] The software must be open source as per the OSI definition.
[x] The software must have an obvious research application.
[x] You must be a major contributor to the software you are submitting, and have a GitHub account to participate in the review process.
[x] Your paper must not focus on new research results accomplished with the software.
[ ] Your paper (paper.md and BibTeX files, plus any figures) must be hosted in a Git-based repository together with your software (although they may be in a short-lived branch which is never merged with the default).

In addition, the software associated with your submission must:

[x] Be stored in a repository that can be cloned without registration.
[x] Be stored in a repository that is browsable online without registration.
[x] Have an issue tracker that is readable without registration.
[x] Permit individuals to create issues/file tickets against your repository.

After the author (you I think? :tada: or @mr-c ) have checked all the requirements above, and started the process, eventually it will make into review. At that point, the reviewers will be asked to review the following:

Review checklist for ??? reviewer

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

[ ] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author ( ???? ) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] 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?

common-workflow-lab / wdl-cwl-translator

JOSS Paper #180