Closed editorialbot closed 2 weeks ago
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago 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 commandsFor example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdfReference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.dm is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.xml2 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Teil 2: Räumliche Modellierung des ökotoxikologisc...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Nationale Risikoindikatoren für Pflanzenschutzmitt...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: srppphist: Historical Data from the Swiss Register...
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.09 s (882.9 files/s, 353816.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 16 2253 2234 7903
CSS 7 3158 31 7028
HTML 32 832 1 5633
R 8 125 393 783
Markdown 3 35 0 133
YAML 5 22 16 128
TeX 2 4 0 48
make 1 13 0 39
XML 1 1 0 31
SVG 1 0 1 11
JSON 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 77 6443 2676 21738
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
24 Ranke Johannes
4 Johannes RankePaper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 710
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago License info:
🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
kthyng
commented
2 months ago Hi @jranke and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:
In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.
kthyng
commented
2 months ago @jranke Some comments:
Since this package is relatively small in terms of lines of code, I am going to ping the editorial board to see if it is in scope for JOSS in terms of substantial scholarly effort. This will take a few weeks, thanks for your patience.
kthyng
commented
2 months ago @editorialbot query scope
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago Submission flagged for editorial review.
jranke
commented
2 months ago @editorialbot commands
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago Hello @jranke, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
@editorialbot check repository
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.09 s (877.5 files/s, 353884.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 16 2253 2234 7903
CSS 7 3158 31 7028
HTML 32 832 1 5633
R 8 125 393 783
Markdown 4 145 0 618
YAML 5 22 16 128
TeX 2 4 0 51
make 1 13 0 39
XML 1 1 0 31
SVG 1 0 1 11
JSON 1 0 0 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 78 6553 2676 22226
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commit count by author:
26 Ranke Johannes
4 Johannes RankePaper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 710
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago License info:
🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)
jranke
commented
2 months ago @editorialbot check references
editorialbot
commented
2 months ago Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.34776/as171g is OK
- 10.34776/as154g is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.dm is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.xml2 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: srppphist: Historical Data from the Swiss Register...
INVALID DOIs
- None
Hi @jranke and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:
- [x] OSI-approved license
- [x] Installation instructions
- [x] Documentation exists at all
- [x] Tests of some sort
- [x] Check paper (make sure compiles, read through, check for length 250-1000 words)
- [ ] Substantial scholarly effort
- [ ] Clear research application
In the meantime, please take a look at the comments above ⬆️ from the editorialbot to address any DOI, license, or paper issues if you're able (there may not be any), or suggest reviewers. For reviewers, please suggest 5 reviewers from the database listed above or your own (non-conflicted) extended network. Their github handles are most useful to receive but please don't use "@" to reference them since it will prematurely ping them.
Hi @kthyng, thanks for giving a first round of feedback on the submission. I fixed the license issue by including a license file (the license was only specified in the DESCRIPTION file previously). Also, I added two missing DOIs to the bibtex file. The last reference does not have a DOI yet, as it is a package which is not yet on CRAN and maybe never will be due to its size.
Regarding the criterion substantial scholarly effort, I would like to point out that some care was taken to avoid code duplication by defining several functions that are being used repeatedly in the code for reading in certain structures in the XML file, in order to avoid code duplication.
Regarding research application, it may be worth noting that the companion package srppphist (that has been split out in order to keep load times low) provides historical data on registered substances and products that is not otherwise available and which will be useful for environmental scientists that want to put their findings into context. That package would not be possible without srppp described in this contribution.
As reviewers, I have selected
from your list, and from the people we know more or less, I think the following would be suitable:
jranke
commented
1 month ago Since this package is relatively small in terms of lines of code, I am going to ping the editorial board to see if it is in scope for JOSS in terms of substantial scholarly effort. This will take a few weeks, thanks for your patience.
Hi @kthyng, this is just a pingback to see if you can see any progress on this with regard to the editorial board? In the comment above, I think I have addressed the points you raised and named a few potential reviewers.
kthyng
commented
3 weeks ago @jranke I'm sorry for the delay and I'll aim to get back to you this week.
jranke
commented
3 weeks ago Ok, this would be excellent, thanks!
kthyng
commented
2 weeks ago @jranke Sorry for the long delay. Unfortunately the editorial board has determined this to be too small in terms of substantial scholarly effort. Specific comments include:
We also considered the case in which we reviewed your two repositories together, but they are still too few lines of code (representing level of effort), even combined.
We have some notes on other venues for publishing your software here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#other-venues-for-reviewing-and-publishing-software-packages
Thanks for your interest in JOSS.
kthyng
commented
2 weeks ago @editorialbot reject
editorialbot
commented
2 weeks ago Paper rejected.
jranke
commented
2 weeks ago OK, thanks for letting us know, and thanks to everyone involved for the work you/they put in. What irritates me a bit is that someone on the editorial board supposed that we turned a single analysis script into several pieces just to be able to "sell" it as a package. This was definitely not the case, it was just convenient to write and test different functions for the different types of information to be extracted and then to put everything together in a package to make the functionality easily accessible to the user. We also provide documentation with example uses, also helping to analyse the data (e.g. the function alternative_products). But of course I understand the editorial board has its standards, and the number of lines of code is one of them. Therefore thanks again for your efforts and for making JOSS possible! Johannes
kthyng
commented
2 weeks ago @jranke I'm sorry — it was irresponsible of me to keep that sort of wording in there when I should have removed it. Editors can get a bit defensive because we are short of time and having to look for warning signs of that sort of behavior, when in fact we are ascribing intention to what just happens to be in the code the way the package was written. I hope you will accept my apology for airing that and inadvertently accusing you of something you didn't do.
jranke
commented
2 weeks ago Yes, sure thing, and definitely I understand that this is all being done on a voluntary basis and under time constraints, so thanks again for your efforts!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jranke<!--end-author-handle-- (Johannes Ranke) Repository: https://github.com/agroscope-ch/srppp Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.99.2 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @jranke. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@jranke 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: