search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
694 stars 36 forks source link

[REVIEW]: OpenRepGrid: An R Package for the Analysis of Repertory Grid Data #6918

Open editorialbot opened 6 days ago

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@markheckmann<!--end-author-handle-- (Mark Heckmann) Repository: https://github.com/markheckmann/OpenRepGrid Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: 0.1.15 Editor: !--editor-->@arfon<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @yiqunchen, @rlbarter Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8)

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

@yiqunchen & @rlbarter, 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 @arfon 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

@yiqunchen, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

@rlbarter, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

editorialbot commented 6 days 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 6 days ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.01 s (541.3 files/s, 85200.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              1             28              0            320
Markdown                         1             77              0            155
R                                1             15              9             21
YAML                             1              1              4             18
Rmd                              1             47             80             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             5            168             93            526
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    15  Mark Heckmann
editorialbot commented 6 days ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2439

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

editorialbot commented 6 days ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.03292 is OK
- 10.1017/s1138741600004765 is OK
- 10.3758/bf03195461 is OK
- 10.1080/107205300265955 is OK
- 10.4324/9780203405970 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118508275.ch9 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1982.tb01506.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.322 is OK
- 10.1111/papt.12269 is OK
- 10.1080/10720537.2018.1499159 is OK
- 10.1177/001872674900200205 is OK
- 10.1080/10720537.2015.1134368 is OK
- 10.1080/08936039208404940 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.150 is OK
- 10.1080/08936039208404938 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: shiny: Web Application Framework for R. R package ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GRIDCOR: Correspondence Analysis for Grid Data (ve...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A manual for repertory grid technique
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Biplots in practice
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The reconstruction of the self in the psychotherap...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Enquire Within II
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid tec...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid tec...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Rep 5 Conceptual Representation Software: RepGrid ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Gridstat version 5 - A program for analyzing the d...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Implicative dilemmas and psychological well-being
- No DOI given, and none found for title: GridSuite 4
- No DOI given, and none found for title: vademecum repgrid: Leitfaden zum professionellen E...

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 6 days ago

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

arfon commented 6 days ago

@yiqunchen, @rlbarter – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing: 

@editorialbot generate my 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 and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6918 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

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.

Noting from the pre-review thread that both reviewers said they would need until the end of July to complete their reviews.

@markheckmann – while we're waiting, could I ask you to fix a couple of things please:

  1. Please make sure there's a license file at the root of your repository with an OSI-approved license.
  2. Could you also try and shorten your paper a bit if possible please? As a guide, we ask that JOSS papers are typically around 1000 words.

Thank you!