[PRE REVIEW]: MetaMobilePicker: computational identification of mobile genetic elements in metagenomic data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jessekerkvliet<!--end-author-handle-- (Jesse Kerkvliet) Repository: https://gitlab.com/jkerkvliet/metamobilepicker Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): manuscript Version: 0.7.2 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7562c9e4709fcc80d29fd3838aa073de"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7562c9e4709fcc80d29fd3838aa073de/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7562c9e4709fcc80d29fd3838aa073de/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/7562c9e4709fcc80d29fd3838aa073de)

Author instructions

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

@jessekerkvliet 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=0.07 s (441.7 files/s, 38160.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           7            172            321            661
TeX                              2             46              0            577
Markdown                         2             37              0            215
YAML                            18             25              8            198
reStructuredText                 4            176            241            174
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            33            456            570           1825
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1128/CMR.00088-17 is OK
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 is OK
- 10.12688/f1000research.29032.2 is OK
- 10.1186/s40168-020-00993-9 is OK
- 10.1093/jac/dkaa390 is OK
- 10.1016/j.chom.2019.10.022 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkac321 is OK
- 10.1093/femsec/fiy079 is OK
- 10.3390/ijms232314512 is OK
- 10.1186/s40168-018-0401-z is OK
- 10.1099/mgen.0.000748 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkz1010 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkz935 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkp938 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkt1099 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007781 is OK
- 10.1007/s40484-019-0187-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 902

[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 query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@JesseKerkvliet thanks for this submission to JOSS. I am the AEiC for this track and here to help process initial steps. I have just triggered a scope review for the editorial board ☝️. This is because of the relatively small size and limited functionality of this work. The scope review should take no more than 2 weeks.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@JesseKerkvliet unfortunately the editorial board has decided this work is deemed out of scope. Although the software appears useful, it is out of scope due to the small size of the package, and limited functionality contained in it.

Note that the above does not mean the work is of a poor quality or not well prepared. It merely means that in its current form it is not in scope for JOSS.

We will now proceed to reject this submission. We welcome any future (re)submissions that are of a more substantial nature.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.