[REVIEW]: UTDEventData: An R package to access political event data

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @KateHyoung (Hyoungah Kim) Repository: https://github.com/KateHyoung/UTDEventData Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @alexhanna Reviewer: @briatte, @andrewheiss Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2648643

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd6fd7f126c57c8aed32d2920f66c608"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd6fd7f126c57c8aed32d2920f66c608/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd6fd7f126c57c8aed32d2920f66c608/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/fd6fd7f126c57c8aed32d2920f66c608)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@briatte & @andrewheiss, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @alexhanna know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @briatte

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@KateHyoung) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

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

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @andrewheiss

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@KateHyoung) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

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

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KateHyoung commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KateHyoung commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KateHyoung commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KateHyoung commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

KateHyoung commented 5 years ago

Dear @danielskatz, I have corrected and added information for the references and checked other parts of the paper as well. My apology for several attempts for compiling. A style whedon generated differs from my internal compiling system. I think the draft looks good.

I would like to express my gratitude to the editor, @alexhanna, and the reviewers; @briatte and @andrewheiss, again for their times and comments for this R library and its paper.

Kate

danielskatz commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1109/isi.2016.7745457 is OK
- 10.7910/DVN/28075 is OK
- 10.1109/iri.2018.00065 is OK
- 10.1080/03050629.2012.697430 is OK
- 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258256 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/636

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/636, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

danielskatz commented 5 years ago

Can you also merge https://github.com/KateHyoung/UTDEventData/pull/12 or make similar changes?

KateHyoung commented 5 years ago

@danielskatz, I have merged the changes in the bib file. Thank you.

danielskatz commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1109/isi.2016.7745457 is OK
- 10.7910/DVN/28075 is OK
- 10.1109/iri.2018.00065 is OK
- 10.1080/03050629.2012.697430 is OK
- 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258256 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/637

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/637, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

danielskatz commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 5 years ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 5 years ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/638
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01322
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01322/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01322)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01322">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01322/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01322/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01322

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews