[REVIEW]: Taguette: open-source qualitative data analysis

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @remram44 (Rémi Rampin) Repository: https://gitlab.com/remram44/taguette Version: 1.1.1 Editor: @Nikoleta-v3 Reviewers: @cmaimone, @vaneseltine Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5574555

: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/41a812345a7342402c65c51dc7381774"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41a812345a7342402c65c51dc7381774/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41a812345a7342402c65c51dc7381774/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/41a812345a7342402c65c51dc7381774)

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

@alexhanna & @cmaimone, 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 @Nikoleta-v3 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 @vaneseltine

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 (@remram44) 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: 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?
[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 @cmaimone

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 (@remram44) 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: 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?
[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?

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

remram44 commented 2 years ago

Thanks @Nikoleta-v3, the latest release is 1.1.1 and has DOI 10.5281/zenodo.5574555.

I have fixed the typos in the paper.

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

@remram44 sanity check: Sarah DeMott is not an author on the paper.

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

Could you overwrite the automatically-filled metadata in the Zenodo archive so that ~the author list and~ title exactly match the JOSS paper.

remram44 commented 2 years ago

I didn't know that the authors had to match exactly (I didn't see this in the guidelines).

Sarah provided the initial idea and is our dear friend but she has not contributed to the software so I don't think she ought to be listed as author. She is acknowledged in the paper. I could update Zenodo but there are 13 versions :sweat_smile:

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

Thank you for you reply! Note that I tweaked my initial comment. Though it's the preferred option it's not a hard requirement!

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

So please ignore my comment.

Re Sarah, it was just a sanity check 👍🏻

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5574555 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5574555 is the archive.

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 1.1.1 as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 1.1.1 is the version.

remram44 commented 2 years ago

I see! I have updated the title, let me know if there's anything else. Thank you so much!

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #3522 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

Nikoleta-v3 commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept from branch 2021-joss-paper

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 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/2814

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2814, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch 2021-joss-paper

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@remram44 - I've suggested two sets of changes, one for the paper (wording), and one for the bib (to remove abstracts that don't need to be sent to crossref)

If you can merge these, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed to publication

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept from branch 2021-joss-paper

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 2 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/2818

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2818, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch 2021-joss-paper

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch 2021-joss-paper

whedon commented 2 years ago

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

whedon commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 2 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/2819
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 2 years ago

Congratulations to @remram44 (Rémi Rampin) and coauthor!!

And thanks to @cmaimone and @vaneseltine for reviewing, and @Nikoleta-v3 for editing! We couldn't do this without you

whedon commented 2 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.03522/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03522/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03522/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03522

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