[PRE REVIEW]: colorspace: A Python Toolbox for Manipulating and Assessing Colors and Palettes

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@retostauffer<!--end-author-handle-- (Reto Stauffer) Repository: https://github.com/retostauffer/python-colorspace Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.5.0 Editor: !--editor-->@jromanowska<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @hollowscene, @dmreagan Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/94041eecfa4b186c7c07252875817578"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/94041eecfa4b186c7c07252875817578/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/94041eecfa4b186c7c07252875817578/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/94041eecfa4b186c7c07252875817578)

Author instructions

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

@retostauffer 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]

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

Failed to parse BibTeX on value "title" (NAME) [#<BibTeX::Bibliography data=[18]>, "@", #<BibTeX::Entry >, "%"]

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.23 s (366.8 files/s, 111074.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          55           4134           7429           9260
CSV                              1              0              0           1058
TeX                              2            137             82            987
Markdown                         4            157              0            459
YAML                             6             54             79            344
JSON                             6             13              0            318
SVG                              3              2              2            233
Sass                             2             17             14            134
make                             1             22             32             65
R                                2             31             18             46
INI                              1              1              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            83           4568           7656          12911
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   498  Reto Stauffer
    54  =
    34  Achim Zeileis
     6  github-actions[bot]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1582

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[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:

KALMUS: tools for color analysis of films Submitting author: @yc015 Handling editor: @gkthiruvathukal (Active) Reviewers: @thomakra, @elektrobohemian Similarity score: 0.6793

lightr: import spectral data and metadata in R Submitting author: @bisaloo Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @danielskatz Similarity score: 0.6434

splot - visual analytics for spatial statistics Submitting author: @slumnitz Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @ResidentMario, @martinfleis Similarity score: 0.6266

tidyHeatmap: an R package for modular heatmap production based on tidy principles Submitting author: @stemangiola Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @rlbarter, @AliciaSchep Similarity score: 0.6210

Pyafscgap.org: Open source multi-modal Python-based tools for NOAA AFSC RACE GAP Submitting author: @sampottinger Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active) Reviewers: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Similarity score: 0.6153

⚠️ 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]

@retostauffer - thanks for your submission. As you can see, our DOI checked failed on your bibtex file. I think it might be because of the commented-out entries, as I don't think the use of % is really standard. Can you perhaps remove the parts of the bibtex file that are not needed here? And then use the command @editorialbot check references to check the file again. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

Additionally, it's not clear to me that this is research software as defined by JOSS, so the editors will now discuss this. You should hear back in a week or two.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[retostauffer]

@editorialbot check references

Removed commented-out lines in the bibtex file. Thank you for the hint, @danielskatz .

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41467-020-19160-7 is OK
- 10.18637/jss.v096.i01 is OK
- 10.1109/tvcg.2009.113 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03021 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10957263 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.12514964 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/0306-4573(91)90096-5 may be a valid DOI for title: Envisioning Information
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Color Use Guidelines for Data Representation
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Color
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fundamentals of Data Visualization
- No DOI given, and none found for title: What’s New in Matplotlib 2.0 (Jan 17, 2017), Chang...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Colour for Presentation Graphics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Colormap
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Colormaps
- No DOI given, and none found for title: palettable: Color Palettes for Python
- No DOI given, and none found for title: cmcrameri: Python Wrapper around Fabio Crameri’s P...

INVALID DOIs

- None

[zeileis]

The DOI 10.1016/0306-4573(91)90096-5 is for a review of the Tufte (1990) book Envisioning Information and not the book itself. For the book itself we couldn't find a DOI and hence did not further modify the .bib file.

[danielskatz]

@retostauffer - thanks for waiting. We've decided this is research software, though it wasn't completely clear. I hope that during the review, you can make the case more clearly in the paper and in the readme/documentation, such as what kinds of research this is useful for.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign @jromanowska as editor

Thanks for volunteering!

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jromanowska is now the editor

[jromanowska]

Hi, @retostauffer :wave: I will take care of the process from now on. I will try to find reviewers, but please let me know if you have any suggestions (or oppositions). When naming reviewers, write their GitHub handles without @, so that they won't get notified.

[jromanowska]

@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:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

KALMUS: tools for color analysis of films Submitting author: @yc015 Handling editor: @gkthiruvathukal (Active) Reviewers: @thomakra, @elektrobohemian Similarity score: 0.6779

lightr: import spectral data and metadata in R Submitting author: @bisaloo Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active) Reviewers: @danielskatz Similarity score: 0.6432

splot - visual analytics for spatial statistics Submitting author: @slumnitz Handling editor: @leouieda (Retired) Reviewers: @ResidentMario, @martinfleis Similarity score: 0.6256

tidyHeatmap: an R package for modular heatmap production based on tidy principles Submitting author: @stemangiola Handling editor: @karthik (Retired) Reviewers: @rlbarter, @AliciaSchep Similarity score: 0.6202

Pyafscgap.org: Open source multi-modal Python-based tools for NOAA AFSC RACE GAP Submitting author: @sampottinger Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active) Reviewers: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Similarity score: 0.6160

⚠️ 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.

[jromanowska]

:wave: @yc015 , would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[retostauffer]

We'd like to thank @danielskatz for handling the initial submission to JOSS and accepting our article for entering review. The choice of effective color maps plays a crucial role in accurately communicating scientific results, which are often presented visually through graphs and figures. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will more clearly emphasize the significance of this aspect for science and research.

Additionally, we would like to extend our thanks to @jromanowska for overseeing the review process. Unfortunately, we do not have any suitable reviewers to suggest at this time, but I will reach out if I am able to identify any appropriate candidates.

[danielskatz]

@retostauffer - as is written in the first comment in this issue, you might want to search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

[jromanowska]

:wave: @flekschas, would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[jromanowska]

@editorialbot add @hollowscene as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@hollowscene added to the reviewers list!

[jromanowska]

:wave: @hollowscene , thank you for volunteering to review this submission! Please, feel free to look around and check the docs, while I try to find reviewer no.2.

[jromanowska]

@editorialbot add @dmreagan as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@dmreagan added to the reviewers list!

[jromanowska]

@dmreagan , thank you for agreeing to review the paper! I will start the official review tomorrow - I got one more person interested in reviewing, just need to wait for their final decision.

[flekschas]

@jromanowska thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately, I'm not available in the next month.

[jromanowska]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7120.