editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@blind-contours@csoneson<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mhu48, @lucasmiranda42 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10038794

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70888201f8453113ab2a8d287b78c0f6"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70888201f8453113ab2a8d287b78c0f6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70888201f8453113ab2a8d287b78c0f6/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/70888201f8453113ab2a8d287b78c0f6)

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

@mhu48 & @lucasmiranda42, 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 @csoneson 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 @mhu48

📝 Checklist for @lucasmiranda42

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello humans, 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 commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.29 s (450.2 files/s, 57502.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               92           2012           2045           8221
TeX                              3            170              8           1274
Markdown                         4            134              0           1051
Rmd                              4            296            325            363
Bourne Shell                    25             74            468             76
YAML                             2             12              4             71
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           130           2698           2850          11056
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/biostatistics/kxu058 is OK
- 10.1097/01.ee9.0000606120.58494.9d is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1510489113 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2015-0013 is OK
- 10.2202/1557-4679.1217 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/sim.5907 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-65304-4_14 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-9782-1 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-65304-4 is OK
- 10.2202/1557-4679.1356 is OK
- 10.1111/rssb.12362 is OK
- 10.1111/biom.13375 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02526 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1342293 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3558313 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3698329 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1295

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:

csoneson commented 1 year ago

👋🏼 @blind-contours, @mhu48, @lucasmiranda42 - this is the review thread for the submission. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please check the post at the top of the issue for instructions on how to generate your own review checklist. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues directly in the software repository. If you do so, please mention this thread so that a link is created (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions in this thread. It is often easier to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

Please feel free to ping me (@csoneson) if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks!

lucasmiranda42 commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @lucasmiranda42

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 https://github.com/blind-contours/SuperNOVA?
[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 (@blind-contours) 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
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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?

lucasmiranda42 commented 1 year ago

Hi! First impressions on my side.

1) The paper is well written: it clearly states how the package fits in the field, and the problems it intends to solve. My only concern is regarding the references: in the README file of the main repo there are several other references that are not mentioned in the manuscript. I would suggest either adding them or justifying why this is not the case :)

2) The package installs without problems. I filed an issue with a minor concern regarding how the instructions are documented, but overall everything seems to work properly. The example provided in the README file does however not work. It seems to be due to an undocumented change in the API; I filed an issue accordingly.

3) While automatic tests are provided, the CI pipeline seems to be failing at the moment. I would suggest inspecting why and fixing the failing tests.

4) Lastly, while the provided example seems well documented (I haven't gone fully through it yet due to the issue mentioned above) I couldn't find a link to more extensive documentation of the package capabilities and functions. In case it indeed does not exist, I would suggest expanding here!

I will for now wait until (2) is clarified and/or fixed, and fully test functionality then.

Best, and looking forward! Lucas

mhu48 commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @mhu48

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 https://github.com/blind-contours/SuperNOVA?
[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 (@blind-contours) 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
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] 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.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] 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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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)?
[ ] 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?

mhu48 commented 1 year ago

Hi,

I have reviewed your paper titled "Package X for Statistical Analysis" submitted to the Journal of Open Statistical Software. Overall, the paper is well written and clearly articulates the purpose and scope of the proposed package. However, I do have some concerns and suggestions that I would like to share with you.

Firstly, I recommend that you either include some more references in the manuscript to support this research project, or justify why the current two listed are sufficient for the paper.

Secondly, I successfully installed the package without any issues. However, I encountered similar problems with the example provided in the README file and the CI pipeline. It would be a good idea if you could investigate and address the issues causing the failures to ensure that the package is reliable and robust. I look forward to reviewing the full functionality and performance of the package once this is resolved. I also suggest adding one or two more alternative examples so the new user could more easily understand the different ways to apply this package.

Lastly, I would appreciate more details discussing the potential scope and usage of the package in the second paragraph under the secion, "SuperNOVA ’s Scope".

Overall, I believe that the package has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the field.

Best regards,

Ming

csoneson commented 1 year ago

👋🏻 Just wanted to check in here. @blind-contours - please have a look at the comments from the reviewers above, and let us know if you have any questions or when you are ready for the reviewers to take another look. Thanks!

csoneson commented 1 year ago

👋🏻 @blind-contours - could you give us an update on how things are going here? Don't hesitate to let us know if you have any questions. Thanks!

blind-contours commented 1 year ago

@csoneson, thank you for your patience. I have re-written the paper based on the comments from @mhu48. I need to run some additional checks to ensure functionality as I have done some considerable updates and also included data-adaptive mediation analysis to the package. Let me run my checks and get back to you in a couple days. Thank you for your review.

csoneson commented 1 year ago

👋🏻 @blind-contours - could you provide an update on how things are going here? Thanks!

blind-contours commented 1 year ago

Almost done! At JSM now presenting the method. I'll reach out shortly when I'm finished.

blind-contours commented 1 year ago

@csoneson, @mhu48, @lucasmiranda42 -- I've fixed the example in the readme introduction and re-written the readme to be clearer and include mediation. I've also updated the paper. The current CI is still broken because SL3 has an imputation dependency that isn't on CRAN anymore so the install fails at the moment. I'm trying to figure out how to fix this in the YML script. But for now, everything in the package should work. Please let me know what other comments/suggestions you have and I'll update the package.

blind-contours commented 1 year ago

The package passes all green on my end with no notes or anything.

csoneson commented 1 year ago

Thanks @blind-contours - @mhu48, @lucasmiranda42, when you have a chance, could you take a look at the modified submission and let us know what you think. Thanks!

csoneson commented 1 year ago

👋🏻 @mhu48, @lucasmiranda42 - just wanted to check in to see if you have an estimate of when you might be able to take another look at this submission. Thanks a lot in advance!

mhu48 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the reminder. I will try to find some time over this weekend to review this revision.

On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 8:02 AM Charlotte Soneson @.***> wrote:

👋🏻 @mhu48 https://github.com/mhu48, @lucasmiranda42 https://github.com/lucasmiranda42 - just wanted to check in to see if you have an estimate of when you might be able to take another look at this submission. Thanks a lot in advance!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5422#issuecomment-1722225856, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKGGVY4IKSUN7QENPKJYQL3X2WPP5ANCNFSM6AAAAAAXQBEYBI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

csoneson commented 1 year ago

Thanks @mhu48 - @lucasmiranda42, do you have an estimate of when you think you will be able to take another look? Thanks.

mhu48 commented 1 year ago

Hi Charlotte,

Thanks for the reminder, I forgot to click send on the email last night.

I reviewed the revised submission this weekend and feel that it is ready for publication.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

Best,

Ming

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:10 AM Charlotte Soneson @.***> wrote:

Thanks @mhu48 https://github.com/mhu48 - @lucasmiranda42 https://github.com/lucasmiranda42, do you have an estimate of when you think you will be able to take another look? Thanks.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5422#issuecomment-1734059852, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKGGVY36LPSOFHH5VOQSGBTX4GUJDANCNFSM6AAAAAAXQBEYBI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

csoneson commented 1 year ago

Thanks @mhu48 - could you please also tick the remaining boxes in your review checklist above?

mhu48 commented 12 months ago

Review checklist for @mhu48

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 https://github.com/blind-contours/SuperNOVA?
[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 (@blind-contours) 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
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[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?

csoneson commented 11 months ago

👋🏻 @lucasmiranda42 - could you let us know when you think you would be able to take a look at the revised version of this submission? Thanks in advance!

lucasmiranda42 commented 11 months ago

Dear all, the package now runs smoothly on my end and fulfils all functionality claims. My only concern is regarding documentation, which I couldn't find (other than the README). @blind-contours could you elaborate on whether this is intended and why API docs may not be needed? With this, the paper would have green light on my side as well. Best! Lucas

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

@lucasmiranda42 there should be a detailed vignette that accompanies the package. Let me ensure that it is compiling properly. Was it not showing up on your version when you did testing?

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

I've added a new directory /doc that should have an html file that brings up the vignette. I'm going to make some edits to it now but it should be available for users.

csoneson commented 11 months ago

@lucasmiranda42 - just wanted to check whether the additional information provided by @blind-contours allowed you to access the vignette?

lucasmiranda42 commented 11 months ago

Perfect! All set on my side, then :)

csoneson commented 11 months ago

Thank you @lucasmiranda42! @blind-contours - I will also take a quick look through the submission, and will get back to you shortly with the next steps.

csoneson commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

csoneson commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/ijb-2015-0013 is OK
- 10.2202/1557-4679.1217 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01685.x is OK
- 10.1002/sim.5907 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-65304-4_14 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-9782-1 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-65304-4 is OK
- 10.2202/1557-4679.1356 is OK
- 10.1111/rssb.12362 is OK
- 10.1111/biom.13375 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02526 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1342293 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3558313 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

csoneson commented 11 months ago

@blind-contours I have gone through the submission and overall it looks good. Just a couple of points, mostly related to the bibliography - could you please:

remove unused entries from the .bib file
add a DOI for McCoy et al (2023)
add {} as appropriate to make the representation of Mark van der Laan's name consistent across bibliography items
add a space between superNOVA and package on line 100

In addition, the sentence starting on line 51 and ending on line 57 is very long, and I would suggest splitting it up to increase readability.

You can generate a new proof with @editorialbot generate pdf

Once this is done, please have a look at the next steps in the post below.

csoneson commented 11 months ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

[ ] Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
[ ] Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
[ ] Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
[ ] Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a PR)
[x] Check the references in the paper for corrections (e.g. capitalization)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[x] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10038794

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

Link here: https://zenodo.org/records/10038794

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

I think I've made the suggested changes and also created the release version and upload to Zenodo correctly - if there are issues do please let me know.

csoneson commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 11 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/rssb.12362 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1342293 is OK
- 10.1515/ijb-2015-0013 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.01849 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- 10.1111/j.1541-0420 is INVALID

csoneson commented 11 months ago

Thanks @blind-contours - a couple of things remain:

The capitalization of 'van der Laan' is still different for Diaz and van der Laan (2012).
Please remove the 'https://doi.org/' from the DOI of McCoy et al (2023).
I believe the invalid DOI for Diaz and van der Laan (2012) should be 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01685.x
The very long sentence (now lines 50-56, 'In the event of basis functions...') is still very long and hard to parse.
Please make the author list in Zenodo the same as that of the paper
I'm a bit confused by the version tags. The version in the DESCRIPTION file is 1.0, the version of the Zenodo archive you link to above is 1.0.0, and the latest release in the GitHub repo is 1.0.1. Could you please clarify?

Thanks!

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

Sorry about that. Everything should be fixed now.

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

blind-contours commented 11 months ago

@editorialbot check references

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: `SuperNOVA`: Semi-Parametric Identification and Estimation of Interaction and Effect Modification in Mixed Exposures using Stochastic Interventions in `R` #5422

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @lucasmiranda42

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @mhu48

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @mhu48

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance