[REVIEW]: overviewR - Easily Explore Your Data in R

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@cosimameyer@samhforbes<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @drmowinckels, @milenamilena Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7097560

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b161adf6c81cedb2bda1ae36b54c6ce0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b161adf6c81cedb2bda1ae36b54c6ce0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b161adf6c81cedb2bda1ae36b54c6ce0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b161adf6c81cedb2bda1ae36b54c6ce0)

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

@drmowinckels & @milenamilena, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @samhforbes 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @drmowinckels

📝 Checklist for @milenamilena

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/09557571.2021.1980498 is OK
- 10.1093/jogss/ogac009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01509 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2019-033 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

xuanxu commented 1 year ago

Footnotes are not allowed in the Institutions list. The error is caused by the syntax used here: https://github.com/cosimameyer/overviewR/blob/master/paper/paper.md?plain=1#L16

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

@xuanxu thanks for this - I wouldn't have known this is an issue. @cosimameyer would you mind fixing this, and we can re-run with everything crossed.

cosimameyer commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the update! I'll change it - is there a way to include the footnote info somewhere? Or should we leave it out?

xuanxu commented 1 year ago

is there a way to include the footnote info somewhere?

Maybe adding it as a second affiliation for both authors?

cosimameyer commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

cosimameyer commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/09557571.2021.1980498 is OK
- 10.1093/jogss/ogac009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01509 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2019-033 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

Thanks @editorialbot We are going to try again for real! Fingers crossed.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

You are welcome

cosimameyer commented 1 year ago

Excellent suggestion, thanks @xuanxu. I archived the new version at @samhforbes, the new DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.7097560 (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7097560). Can you update it?

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7097560 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7097560

samhforbes commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1080/09557571.2021.1980498 is OK
- 10.1093/jogss/ogac009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01509 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2019-033 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3542, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

cosimameyer commented 1 year ago

This looks great 🚀 What a wonderful way to (possibly) finish a workday! :)

kyleniemeyer commented 1 year ago

Hi @cosimameyer, I just made a PR with a few minor edits to the paper, could you merge that? https://github.com/cosimameyer/overviewR/pull/34

Then I can proceed with accepting the paper.

cosimameyer commented 1 year ago

Thanks, @kyleniemeyer - it's merged 😊

kyleniemeyer commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

kyleniemeyer commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot commented 1 year 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/3543
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04740
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer commented 1 year ago

Congratulations @cosimameyer on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @drmowinckels and @milenamilena for reviewing this, and @samhforbes for editing.

editorialbot commented 1 year 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.04740/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04740)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04740">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04740/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04740/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04740

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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