[PRE REVIEW]: SpmImage Tycoon: Organize and analyze scanning probe microscopy data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@alexriss<!--end-author-handle-- (Alexander Riss) Repository: https://github.com/alexriss/SpmImageTycoon.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.3.6 Editor: !--editor-->@jgostick<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @xaviercm94, @jingpengw Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62906b1951cc0e6bb5ada05f3309c6f0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62906b1951cc0e6bb5ada05f3309c6f0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62906b1951cc0e6bb5ada05f3309c6f0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/62906b1951cc0e6bb5ada05f3309c6f0)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @alexriss. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@alexriss 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 JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

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

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (464.7 files/s, 88186.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      18            563            365           3629
Julia                           12            504            112           3002
HTML                             1             43             17            809
CSS                              6            170             47            801
SVG                             10              6              0            798
Markdown                         2             49              0            156
YAML                             4              2             10             82
TeX                              1              8              0             74
TOML                             1              4              0             47
AutoHotkey                       1             14              3             46
XML                              2              0              0             20
Bourne Shell                     1              0              0              2
DOS Batch                        1              0              0              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            60           1363            554           9468
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 497

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1063/1.2432410 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- doi:10.2478/s11534-011-0096-2 is INVALID (failed connection)
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2016.04.001 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@alexriss thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on call this week. Can you check those potentially invalid DOI's? :point_up: Once you've amended them you can call @editorialbot check references here and use @editorialbot generate pdf to update the paper.

[alexriss]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.2478/s11534-011-0096-2 is OK
- 10.1063/1.2432410 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2016.04.001 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[alexriss]

@editorialbot generate pdf

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you - I have updated the DOIs.

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot invite @jarvist as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @jgostick as editor

:wave: @jgostick – not sure if this is too left-field for you, but if not, would you be willing to edit this submission for us?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[jarvist]

I don't have much background in scanning microscopy, unfortunately.

[jgostick]

@editorialbot assign @jgostick as editor

I think I can handle this

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jgostick is now the editor

[jgostick]

@editorialbot assign @xaviercm94 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[jgostick]

@editorialbot add @xaviercm94 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@xaviercm94 added to the reviewers list!

[jgostick]

@editorialbot add @jingpengw as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@jingpengw added to the reviewers list!

[jgostick]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4644.

[jgostick]

Hi @jingpengw and @xaviercm94, thanks for agreeing to review this submission. A few things to note about JOSS reviews:

1. They are done publicly, so the authors and reviewers work together to improve the submission
2. The general aim is to help submissions improve until they are ready for publications rather than to reach an accept/reject decision
3. There will be a checklist of items for you to consider on the review thread, so your work is well defined.
4. We generally like to get it all done in about a month or less. Obviously, this is flexible if needed.

[jgostick]

Hi @kasasxav, I have added you to the official review using your new handle, I'm just mentioning you here so you can see the pre-review information.