[PRE REVIEW]: ChooChoo the Checklist tool

[whedon]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@lucydot<!--end-author-handle-- (Lucy Whalley) Repository: https://github.com/lucydot/ChooChoo Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@ttimbers<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @LittleAprilFool, @ggeorg02 Managing EiC: Jordan Gorzalski

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/e4199f0adb4eaf3e28d5976b25612fb5"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/e4199f0adb4eaf3e28d5976b25612fb5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/e4199f0adb4eaf3e28d5976b25612fb5/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/e4199f0adb4eaf3e28d5976b25612fb5)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @lucydot. Currently, there isn't an JOSE editor assigned to your paper.

@lucydot if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

:warning: JOSE reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSE is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/3159450.3159548 is OK
- 10.1145/3159450.3159548 is OK
- 10.14786/FLR.V2I1.24 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1186/s12909-022-03632-z is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Wordcount for paper.md is 963

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (670.3 files/s, 47045.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                        24            465              0            886
Python                          12            249            162            676
YAML                             4             96              5            408
TeX                              1              4              0             55
JavaScript                       1              0              0              6
TOML                             1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            43            814            167           2037
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '82ca687c05d8d1f8a6efbeb4' was
gathered on 2023/03/16.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Lucy Whalley                   248          2536           1321           99.87
choochoo-bot                     1             4              1            0.13

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Lucy Whalley               1090           43.0         11.2                7.98
choochoo-bot                  3           75.0         10.4                0.00

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[lucydot]

@whedon list commands

[whedon]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

[lucydot]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

[lucydot]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[lucydot]

Hello! A note on reviewers...as this is a domain agnostic tool I think the possible reviewer list is quite broad. Familiarity with Github, Github actions and Python would certainly be useful - and reviewers who uses Github for hosting teaching content might be best as they might have a better appreciation for the project motivation. Looking at the spreadsheet - possible reviewers might be: lechten gcdeshpande mattforshaw stefania11

[labarba]

@whedon invite @diazrenata as editor

[whedon]

@diazrenata has been invited to edit this submission.

[labarba]

@diazrenata Have a look at this submission 👀 Would you be available to edit this? I realize you're more of an R person than Python, but the functionality here is mostly around GitHub... let me know what you think (feel free to ping me on Slack).

[lucydot]

Hello @labarba @diazrenata, just a quick message to say let me know if there is anything I can do to help things move along 🚀

[ppxasjsm]

I could potentially act as a reviewer for this, if it is at all helpful!

[labarba]

Thank you, @ppxasjsm — that is most helpful. @diazrenata stepped down as editor, and so we need to find an alternative handling editor. Stay tuned.

[labarba]

@ShanEllis — would you accept handling this submission as editor? (We have one volunteer to review, yay!)

[lucydot]

Hello, just giving this a little ping @labarba @ShanEllis let me know if there is anything I can help with to move things along

[ttimbers]

@labarba - I have just returned from leave and would be happy to step up as editor for this (I have a passion for checklists...)

[labarba]

Awesome, thank you! FYI, JOSE has been upgraded to the latest more powerful bot: @editorialbot — I myself haven't had a chance to try it yet, so here goes...

[labarba]

@editorialbot assign @ttimbers as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @ttimbers is now the editor

[labarba]

@ppxasjsm – You had volunteered to contribute a review for JOSE back in May. Are you still able to do it? We've assigned an editor who will look for a second reviewer before starting the Review issue.

[ttimbers]

@editorialbot add @LittleAprilFool as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@LittleAprilFool added to the reviewers list!

[lucydot]

Hello @ttimbers @LittleAprilFool @ppxasjsm

Awkward timing but I am on Annual Leave until the 8th of August (without any internet)!

Hope that works ok with the review process. I will check in on this ASAP after getting back from camping.

Best,

Lucy

[ttimbers]

@editorialbot add @ggeorg02 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@ggeorg02 added to the reviewers list!

[ttimbers]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/220.

[ppxasjsm]

Sorry I missed this, not sure why I didn't get an email notification with me mentioned specifically. I can still review, but I see you have now already found two willing people!