[REVIEW]: StatAid: a R package with a graphical user interface for data analysis

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @VincentAlcazer (Vincent Alcazer) Repository: https://github.com/VincentAlcazer/StatAid Version: v1.1.2 Editor: @mikldk Reviewer: @nistara, @adithirgis Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4152933

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

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

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae17f4e76e8559c635d41dfe9405da73"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae17f4e76e8559c635d41dfe9405da73/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae17f4e76e8559c635d41dfe9405da73/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae17f4e76e8559c635d41dfe9405da73)

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) by leaving comments 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

@nistara & @adithirgis, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @mikldk know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @nistara

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

[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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@VincentAlcazer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] 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?

Review checklist for @adithirgis

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

[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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@VincentAlcazer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] 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?

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@VincentAlcazer There seem to be an issue with the archive. The file available for download is named 1.1 (not 1.1.0), and at the repo there is no 1.1.0 release (https://github.com/VincentAlcazer/StatAid/releases).

VincentAlcazer commented 3 years ago

@mikldk the version has been corrected on github. The archive available on Zenodo is also the good version with the updated paper, only the name has not been changed (because the software itself was not changed).

Would you prefer that I upload a new version on Zenodo with the renamed archive (1.1.0 intead of 1.1)?

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@mikldk the version has been corrected on github. The archive available on Zenodo is also the good version with the updated paper, only the name has not been changed (because the software itself was not changed).

Would you prefer that I upload a new version on Zenodo with the renamed archive (1.1.0 intead of 1.1)?

At https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html you can read that "Upon successful completion of the review, authors will make a tagged release of the software, and deposit a copy of the repository with a data-archiving service such as Zenodo [...]".

So yes, the version in the paper (1.1.0) must have a tagged release of same version that is also available at Zenodo. All same version. You can integrate Zenodo and Github such that Github releases automatically get a Zenodo release.

VincentAlcazer commented 3 years ago

@mikldk : Sorry for this inconvenience. The Zenodo archive has been linked with github and published with the updated name (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4146817).

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4146817 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4146817 is the archive.

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@VincentAlcazer It looks like you have folders such as .Rproj.user in your Git. Please remove it by creating a .gitignore file. Check other folders, too - I am not sure about e.g. rsconnect.

VincentAlcazer commented 3 years ago

@mikldk it is strange as the .gitignore file already included .Rproj.user. I manually deleted the folders and added rsconnect exclusion in the .gitignore file. It seems to work correctly now.

I had to push a new version to update the Github and Zenodo releases: version: 1.1.01 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4147144

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4147144 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4147144 is the archive.

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@VincentAlcazer I apologise for being pedantic, but 1.1.01 is not a valid semantic version number, which I strongly suggest to stick to. See https://semver.org/ under §2 ("A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and Z are non-negative integers, and MUST NOT contain leading zeroes.").

I would suggest calling it version 1.1.1 instead.

VincentAlcazer commented 3 years ago

@mikldk I understand and sorry for this fastidious release. In fact I chose 1.1.01 due to Zenodo conflicts for 1.1.1.

I updated the version (and had to change the number for Zenodo): New version: 1.1.2 10.5281/zenodo.4152933

Thank you again for your time.

Best regards,

Vincent Alcazer

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4152933 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4152933 is the archive.

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@whedon set v1.1.2 as version

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. v1.1.2 is the version.

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 3 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.18637/jss.v014.i09 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1878

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1878, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

mikldk commented 3 years ago

@nistara, @adithirgis Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing this paper!

arfon commented 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago

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

whedon commented 3 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 3 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/1881
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02630
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 3 years ago

@nistara, @adithirgis - many thanks for your reviews here and to @mikldk for editing this submission ✨

@VincentAlcazer - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

whedon commented 3 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02630/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02630)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02630">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02630/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02630/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02630

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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews