[PRE REVIEW]: ggsankeyfier: An R package to visualise flows of quantities through stages

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@pepijn-devries<!--end-author-handle-- (Pepijn de Vries) Repository: https://github.com/pepijn-devries/ggsankeyfier Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS Version: v0.1.8 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fde3dea65ebe45f3c18e7ee1888c787b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fde3dea65ebe45f3c18e7ee1888c787b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fde3dea65ebe45f3c18e7ee1888c787b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fde3dea65ebe45f3c18e7ee1888c787b)

Author instructions

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

@pepijn-devries if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

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 1.90  T=0.03 s (1439.1 files/s, 296574.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              3              0              0           4605
SVG                              6              0              0           1287
R                               22             88            454            919
Markdown                         6            225              0            913
Rmd                              5            143            383            226
TeX                              1             16              0            146
YAML                             3              9              7             59
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            46            481            844           8155
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    10  Vries
     4  pepijn-devries

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1501

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[danielskatz]

@xuanxu - can you see what the error is here? the paper doesn't compile but doesn't give a useful error, and the reference check doesn't seem to give anything either.

[pepijn-devries]

Please let me know if I can do anything to fix the pdf build. The github workflow on my branch could build the pdf without any problems.

I've also looked at potential reviewers for the manuscript. I have the following suggestions: Nicholas Tierney; bramvandijk88; Erik-Jan van Kesteren; Matt Kerin; JonathanReardon; trallard.

[xuanxu]

The metadata does not follow the expected format This PR should fix the problem.

[danielskatz]

Perhaps we can figure out a way to flag general metadata problems, or at least indicate "checking metadata" and "metadata successfully read" or something like this?

[pepijn-devries]

Thanks. I've merged the pull request. So this will hopefully work now:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.02017 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00004.x is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0008694 is OK
- 10.1109/TVCG.2013.140 is OK
- 10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532152 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-84628-970-5 is OK
- 10.1080/10618600.2024.2322561 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: ggplot2 Graphics for Data Analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: easyalluvial: Generate Alluvial Plots with a Singl...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: sankey: Illustrate the Flow of Information or Mate...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ggpcp: Parallel Coordinate Plots in the ’ggplot2’ ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: parcats: Interactive Parallel Categories Diagrams ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: networkD3: D3 JavaScript Network Graphs from R
- No DOI given, and none found for title: shiny: Web Application Framework for R
- 10.2139/ssrn.4450241 may be a valid DOI for title: A Cumulative Impact Assessment on the North Sea Ca...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: alluvial: R Package for Creating Alluvial Diagrams
- No DOI given, and none found for title: vwline: Draw Variable-Width Lines

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

👋 @pepijn-devries - thanks for your submission. Due to the relatively small amount of code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. Additionally, it's not clear to me that this is research software as defined by JOSS, so the editors will discuss this too. You should hear back in a week or two.

If you want to, you could work on the possibly missing DOI that editorialbot suggests, but note that it may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[danielskatz]

👋 @pepijn-devries - I'm sorry to say that after discussion amongst the JOSS editors, we have decided that this submission does not meet the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. We also do not think this is research software as defined by JOSS.

Please see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#other-venues-for-reviewing-and-publishing-software-packages for other suggestions for how you might receive credit for your work.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[pepijn-devries]

@danielskatz Sorry to hear this. Thank you for considering.