[REVIEW]: eVAS: A user-friendly electronic Visual Analogue Scale

editorialbot commented 4 weeks ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@gouverneurp@britta-wstnr<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @haoxue-fan, @amitchell12 Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcfce9c9fb4d33c87dac8cf876fd3b27"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcfce9c9fb4d33c87dac8cf876fd3b27/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcfce9c9fb4d33c87dac8cf876fd3b27/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcfce9c9fb4d33c87dac8cf876fd3b27)

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

@haoxue-fan & @amitchell12, 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 @haoxue-fan

editorialbot commented 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/s43441-022-00376-2 is OK
- 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602342 is OK
- 10.1177/0269215517692641 is OK
- 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-17-00088 is OK
- 10.1007/s11245-020-09724-z is OK
- 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02002.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2008.02.002 is OK
- 10.3758/BRM.41.1.99 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-49666-1_19 is OK
- 10.3390/s21144838 is OK
- 10.1007/s11136-023-03411-3 is OK
- 10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.06.012 is OK
- 10.2196/18284 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.06.004 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.08.005 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0280579 is OK
- 10.1002/ejp.1971 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psycho...

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 4 weeks ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.02 s (897.9 files/s, 126309.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           5            245            278            888
INI                              4             23              0            296
Markdown                         3             60              0            258
TeX                              1             18              0            191
Bourne Shell                     3             42             31            151
PowerShell                       1              5              8             19
YAML                             1              1              0             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            18            394            317           1821
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    29  Philip Gouverneur

editorialbot commented 4 weeks ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2273

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 4 weeks ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago

Hello again! 👋 @haoxue-fan and @amitchell12 @gouverneurp

This is the review thread for the paper. All of our higher-level communications will happen here from now on, review comments and discussion can happen in the repository of the project:

📓 Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the comment from our editorialbot (above). ✅ All reviewers get their own checklist with the JOSS requirements - you generate them as per the details in the editorialbot comment. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. 💻 The JOSS review is different from most other journals: The reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention this issue. That will also help me to keep track! ❓ Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. 🎯 We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

britta-wstnr commented 2 weeks ago

(For keeping track: sent e-mails to the reviewers in case they have their GitHub notifications turned off.)

haoxue-fan commented 2 weeks ago

Review checklist for @haoxue-fan

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/gouverneurp/eVAS/?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@gouverneurp) 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

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] 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)?
[ ] 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?
[ ] 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?

openjournals / joss-reviews