[PRE REVIEW]: FACILE-RS: archival and long term preservation of research software repositories made easy

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@MarieHouillon<!--end-author-handle-- (Marie Houillon) Repository: https://git.opencarp.org/openCARP/FACILE-RS Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: v2.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@atrisovic<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @exaexa, @RobLBaker Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a08b305984e053529afe9411c5be7fb9"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a08b305984e053529afe9411c5be7fb9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a08b305984e053529afe9411c5be7fb9/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a08b305984e053529afe9411c5be7fb9)

Author instructions

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

@MarieHouillon 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.12688/f1000research.23224.2 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.15497/RDA00068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5171937 is OK
- 10.5063/schema/codemeta-2.0 is OK
- 10.35097/1979 is OK
- 10.35097/1846 is OK
- 10.35097/1799 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Software publications with rich metadata: state of...

INVALID DOIs

- doi.org/10.14454/3w3z-sa82 is INVALID because of 'doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106223 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Problem with affiliations for Terry Cojean, perhaps the affiliations index need quoting?.

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1340.2 files/s, 117299.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          29            594            436           1953
Markdown                         7            211              0            891
JSON                             5              0              0            545
YAML                            12             13             21            239
XML                              3              0              0            139
TeX                              1             10              0            108
TOML                             1              8              0             90
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
reStructuredText                 1              8             15              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            61            856            480           4003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    99  Marie Houillon
    73  Axel Loewe
    27  Jochen Klar
     7  Tomas Stary
     4  Ziad Boutanios

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1183

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[danielskatz]

@MarieHouillon - thanks for your submission.

Note that your paper does not compile. Please follow the example paper and note that you can click on the error above to find out more about it. In addition, you could work on the invalid DOIs that editorialbot notes. 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 after making changes to the .md file or when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[MarieHouillon]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.12688/f1000research.23224.2 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.15497/RDA00068 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5171937 is OK
- 10.14454/3w3z-sa82 is OK
- 10.5063/schema/codemeta-2.0 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2201.09015 is OK
- 10.35097/1979 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106223 is OK
- 10.35097/1846 is OK
- 10.35097/1799 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[MarieHouillon]

@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]

@MarieHouillon - thanks for your quick fixes. We'll now have a discussion amongst the JOSS editors about if this is research software as defined by JOSS. This could take a week or two.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[MarieHouillon]

Thank you!

[arfon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

☝ generating the most similar papers list (something that has been broken for a while)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

NOMAD: A distributed web-based platform for managing materials science research data Submitting author: @markus1978 Handling editor: @zhubonan (Active) Reviewers: @arosen93, @berquist, @sgbaird Similarity score: 0.7053

CiteLang: Modeling the Research Software Ecosystem Submitting author: @vsoch Handling editor: @faroit (Active) Reviewers: @gflofst, @rmmilewi Similarity score: 0.6991

cffr: Generate Citation File Format Metadata for R Packages Submitting author: @dieghernan Handling editor: @arfon (Active) Reviewers: @arfon Similarity score: 0.6943

CHAMP is a HPC Access and Metadata Portal Submitting author: @cc-a Handling editor: @crvernon (Active) Reviewers: @thurber, @acrlakshman Similarity score: 0.6942

PROFFASTpylot: Running PROFFAST with Python Submitting author: @feldl Handling editor: @rwegener2 (Active) Reviewers: @usethedata, @simonom Similarity score: 0.6865

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[danielskatz]

👋 @MarieHouillon - we'll accept this for review, and get started shortly.

[danielskatz]

👋 @atrisovic - I know you are currently at your editing limit, but this seems potentially a good fit for you, so I wonder if you might want to take it, particularly if you are close to done with any of the others you are editing. If not, I will handle it, but I thought I would try you first.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @atrisovic as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[atrisovic]

Hi @danielskatz I would love to edit this paper. Thank you for the invite!

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot add me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @atrisovic is now the editor

[atrisovic]

Hi @Alexhb02, I would like to invite you to review this software paper. Please let me know if you would be available. Your insights and feedback on this work would be valuable and much appreciated.

[danielskatz]

👋 @atrisovic - I don't see any progress on getting reviewers for this in last month. What's going on?

[atrisovic]

Hi @danielskatz and all, apologies about the delay, the past few weeks were busy and hectic. I should have some time today to send reminders to the reviewers and invite new ones.

[atrisovic]

Hi @markus1978, I am reaching out to invite you to review a manuscript titled "FACILE-RS: Archival and Long-Term Preservation of Research Software Repositories Made Easy," currently under consideration at the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Your insights and feedback on this work would be valuable and much appreciated. To help with the review, we have a reviewers' checklist with useful guidelines. Thank you in advance for considering this invitation. Ana Trisovic, JOSS Topic Editor

[atrisovic]

Hi @Alexhb02, I wanted to follow up on my invitation to review the software paper titled "FACILE-RS: Archival and Long-Term Preservation of Research Software Repositories Made Easy." I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know whether you'll be available to review. Your insights would be invaluable to the quality of this work. Thank you for considering this, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

[atrisovic]

Hi @dieghernan, I am reaching out to invite you to review a manuscript titled "FACILE-RS: Archival and Long-Term Preservation of Research Software Repositories Made Easy," currently under consideration at the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Your insights and feedback on this work would be valuable and much appreciated. To help with the review, we have a reviewers' checklist with useful guidelines. Thank you in advance for considering this invitation. Ana Trisovic, JOSS Topic Editor

[dieghernan]

Hi @atrisovic

Thanks for the invitation but unfortunately I am not available right now. Thanks and good luck

[atrisovic]

Hi @MarieHouillon, do you happen to have any suggestions for potential reviewers? Thank you

[MarieHouillon]

Hi @atrisovic , I've had a look at the list of previous reviewers, and found these people insterested in FAIR data and software:

• RobLBaker
• vankesteren
• AngryMaciek
• exaexa

[atrisovic]

Hi @RobLBaker, I am reaching out to invite you to review a manuscript titled "FACILE-RS: Archival and Long-Term Preservation of Research Software Repositories Made Easy," currently under consideration at the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Your insights and feedback on this work would be valuable and much appreciated. To help with the review, we have a reviewers' checklist with useful guidelines. Thank you in advance for considering this invitation. Ana Trisovic, JOSS Topic Editor

[danielskatz]

👋 @atrisovic - Can you summarize where things are here, and what the next steps are? (As track editor, I try to check in on reviews where nothing has happened in a couple of weeks.)

[atrisovic]

Hi @danielskatz, of course. I reached out to a few people over email and here to ask them to review, without much luck so far. I haven't reached out to everyone from the comment above, so I apologies for being slow.

[atrisovic]

Hi @vankesteren, @AngryMaciek and @exaexa, I am reaching out to invite you to review a manuscript titled "FACILE-RS: Archival and Long-Term Preservation of Research Software Repositories Made Easy," currently under consideration at the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). Your insights and feedback on this work would be valuable and much appreciated. To help with the review, we have a reviewers' checklist with useful guidelines. Thank you in advance for considering this invitation. Ana Trisovic, JOSS Topic Editor

[exaexa]

Hi @atrisovic ! I have time to review, and from a quick peek at the paper it looks I should have the required expertise and I don't see any possible conflict of interest. I should be able to have the review done by next week.

This would be the first review from me for JOSS though, do I have to confirm somewhere in the JOSS webapp interface or everything is done here via issues&PRs?

Thanks! -mk

[RobLBaker]

Unfortunately I cannot contribute any time until the week of October 21. If you're still looking for reviewers then, I'd be happy to pitch in but I hope the creators don't have to wait that long.

[atrisovic]

Hi @exaexa, that sounds great! Nothing to do on the website, the review is happening in the GH issue, and I will help with the next steps.

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot add @exaexa as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@exaexa added to the reviewers list!

[atrisovic]

Hi @RobLBaker, thank you so much for your reply. There is no specific deadline for a JOSS review, so the week of Oct 21 would work. I will add you as a reviewer so we can proceed to the review stage,but we can follow up on your availability then.

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot add @RobLBaker as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@RobLBaker added to the reviewers list!

[atrisovic]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7330.

[AngryMaciek]

Hi @atrisovic, I'd be happy to review this submission :)

[atrisovic]

@AngryMaciek wonderful! I will add you as a reviewer.