[REVIEW]: CRSocket: A web app component facilitating the administration of digital trials from a separate device

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@henrikdvn@britta-wstnr<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @rabdill, @lukaszjablonski Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24009225.v3

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3becacf85e23eb6be092c08148cb4be2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3becacf85e23eb6be092c08148cb4be2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3becacf85e23eb6be092c08148cb4be2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3becacf85e23eb6be092c08148cb4be2)

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

@rabdill & @lukaszjablonski, 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 @britta-wstnr 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 @lukaszjablonski

📝 Checklist for @rabdill

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119241 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0260695 is OK
- 10.1111/desc.13193 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101649 is OK
- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1061528 is OK
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01021 is OK
- 10.1002/acp.3569 is OK
- 10.1177/0894439319851503 is OK
- 10.3233/JAD-160545 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

britta-wstnr 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:

henrikdvn commented 1 year ago

@britta-wstnr: guess I should upload a final version to figshare once everything is complete.

britta-wstnr 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

- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119241 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0260695 is OK
- 10.1111/desc.13193 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101649 is OK
- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1061528 is OK
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01021 is OK
- 10.1002/acp.3569 is OK
- 10.1177/0894439319851503 is OK
- 10.3233/JAD-160545 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

britta-wstnr 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:

henrikdvn commented 1 year ago

@britta-wstnr: Sorry for the hassle. Just curious where things stand at the moment ツ

britta-wstnr commented 1 year ago

Hi @henrikdvn I checked with a more experienced editor and there is no need to update the archive as that is predominantly meant for the software but not the paper. That being said, if you would want to update, you can of course do that and then let me know the new DOI.

If you could let me know what you prefer I can then take care of the rest of the checklist!

henrikdvn commented 1 year ago

@britta-wstnr I have uploaded the current repository (with your updates) to figshare.

Just discovered that DOIs of new versions of figshare items consist of the original DOI with the version number appended. I had to update the title after the initial upload, so there were already two versions. This means that the DOI of this version is 10.6084/m9.figshare.24009225.v3 (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24009225.v3)

Seems like the original DOI always points to the latest version, but it's probably a good idea to include the version part anyway so that I can update it later, if needed, without compromising the archive DOI.

britta-wstnr 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

- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119241 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0260695 is OK
- 10.1111/desc.13193 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101649 is OK
- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1061528 is OK
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01021 is OK
- 10.1002/acp.3569 is OK
- 10.1177/0894439319851503 is OK
- 10.3233/JAD-160545 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

britta-wstnr 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:

britta-wstnr commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 10.6084/m9.figshare.24009225.v3 as archive

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! archive is now 10.6084/m9.figshare.24009225.v3

britta-wstnr commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now v1.0.0

britta-wstnr 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:

britta-wstnr 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

- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119241 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0260695 is OK
- 10.1111/desc.13193 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101649 is OK
- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1061528 is OK
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01021 is OK
- 10.1002/acp.3569 is OK
- 10.1177/0894439319851503 is OK
- 10.3233/JAD-160545 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

britta-wstnr commented 1 year ago

Hi @henrikdvn - I added the new DOI and all looks good to me now - handing this off to the EiC team for acceptance @rabdill and @lukaszjablonski - thank you very much for your work in reviewing this! Thanks everyone for a smooth process 🙏 🌱

PS: @henrikdvn I could not find you in our reviewer database - we'd be very grateful if you considered signing up to pay it forward ✨ you can do that here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join

britta-wstnr 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

- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119241 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0260695 is OK
- 10.1111/desc.13193 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101649 is OK
- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1061528 is OK
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01021 is OK
- 10.1002/acp.3569 is OK
- 10.1177/0894439319851503 is OK
- 10.3233/JAD-160545 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:wave: @openjournals/sbcs-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/4521, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

henrikdvn commented 1 year ago

Thanks again @rabdill, @lukaszjablonski and @britta-wstnr. I have now signed up as a reviewer. Don't feel like an expert on paper writing, but I'll do my best ツ

lukaszjablonski commented 1 year ago

@britta-wstnr and @henrikdvn, thank you for the opportunity to review that one for JOSS!

oliviaguest 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

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

``` cff-version: "1.2.0" authors: - family-names: Dvergsdal given-names: Henrik orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8515-1670" doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24009225.v3 message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the Journal of Open Source Software. preferred-citation: authors: - family-names: Dvergsdal given-names: Henrik orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8515-1670" date-published: 2023-09-08 doi: 10.21105/joss.05658 issn: 2475-9066 issue: 89 journal: Journal of Open Source Software publisher: name: Open Journals start: 5658 title: "CRSocket: A web app component facilitating the administration of digital trials from a separate device" type: article url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05658" volume: 8 title: "CRSocket: A web app component facilitating the administration of digital trials from a separate device" ```

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot 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/4536
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05658
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

britta-wstnr commented 1 year ago

Thanks @oliviaguest !

oliviaguest commented 1 year ago

[Sorry, I had to leave my computer for a small emergency, and then it was the weekend.] Huge thanks to the reviewers @rabdill, @lukaszjablonski and editor @britta-wstnr! ✨ JOSS appreciates your work and effort. ✨ Also, big congratulations to @henrikdvn ! 🥳 🍾

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.05658/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05658)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05658">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05658/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05658/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05658

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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews