[PRE REVIEW]: BTS: Basic Testing System - An R/Shiny-Based Web Tool for Statistical Analysis

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@hdlugas<!--end-author-handle-- (Hunter Dlugas) Repository: https://github.com/hdlugas/BTS Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Chris Vernon

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/663bf534c69b0bad53da6842c8129251"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/663bf534c69b0bad53da6842c8129251/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/663bf534c69b0bad53da6842c8129251/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/663bf534c69b0bad53da6842c8129251)

Author instructions

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

@hdlugas 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

- 10.7554/eLife.89736 is OK
- 10.1187/cbe.07-07-0046 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002430 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v010.i05 is OK
- 10.1201/9781003054313 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.easystats is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
- No DOI given, and none found for title: shiny: Web Application Framework for R
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R
- 10.32614/cran.package.radiant may be a valid DOI for title: radiant: Business Analytics using R and Shiny
- 10.32614/cran.package.vvdoctor may be a valid DOI for title: vvdoctor: Statistical Test App with R ’shiny’
- No DOI given, and none found for title: EZR: Easy R for Medical Statistics

INVALID DOIs

- doi:10.1187/cbe.10-11-0137 is INVALID (failed connection)

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (395.0 files/s, 138369.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                                1            476            471           3216
CSV                              9              0              0            736
TeX                              1             15              0            132
Markdown                         2             23              0             82
JavaScript                       1             19              1             64
YAML                             1              1              0             19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            15            534            472           4249
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    27  hdlugas

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 850

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[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:

StatAid: An R package with a graphical user interface for data analysis Submitting author: @VincentAlcazer Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired) Reviewers: @nistara, @adithirgis Similarity score: 0.7344

statsExpressions: R Package for Tidy Dataframes and Expressions with Statistical Details Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired) Reviewers: @humanfactors, @tomfaulkenberry Similarity score: 0.7292

Visualizations with statistical details: The ggstatsplot approach Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil Handling editor: @csoneson (Active) Reviewers: @njtierney, @kevinrue Similarity score: 0.7264

Bedtoolsr: An R package for genomic data analysis and manipulation Submitting author: @dphansti Handling editor: @mgymrek (Retired) Reviewers: @nhejazi, @mikmaksi Similarity score: 0.7139

fishRman: A Shiny R Dashboard improving Global Fishing Watch data availability Submitting author: @Shyentist Handling editor: @KristinaRiemer (Retired) Reviewers: @jules32, @HeatherWelch Similarity score: 0.7108

⚠️ 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.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot query scope

:wave: @hdlugas - thanks for your submission to JOSS. I am going to get our larger editorial board to review this one to ensure we are meeting the substantial scholarly effort requirement for JOSS. This usually takes about two weeks and I'll get back in touch ASAP.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[crvernon]

@editorialbot reject

:wave: @hdlugas - Thank you for your submission to JOSS. After further review with our larger editorial board we have voted to reject your submission due to not meeting the research software definition requirements for JOSS. Here were some specific comments highlighted by our editorial board:

• More of an educational tool than research software
• Shorter commit history
• Lacks a core research-driven package

Kind regards.

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.