[PRE REVIEW]: cocoon: An R package for extracting, formatting, and printing statistical output

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@JeffreyRStevens<!--end-author-handle-- (Jeffrey R Stevens) Repository: https://github.com/JeffreyRStevens/cocoon Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.1.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/494f07e4e1a4271c94d3fb689c850871"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/494f07e4e1a4271c94d3fb689c850871/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/494f07e4e1a4271c94d3fb689c850871/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/494f07e4e1a4271c94d3fb689c850871)

Author instructions

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

@JeffreyRStevens 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

- 10.21105/joss.01412 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02306 is OK
- 10.1080/00031305.2017.1375986 is OK
- 10.1201/9781315373461 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: papaja: Prepare reproducible APA journal articles ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Literate Programming
- No DOI given, and none found for title: correlation: Methods for correlation analysis
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dynamic Documents with R and knitr

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.32614/cran.package.apa may be a valid DOI for title: apa: Format outputs of statistical tests according...
- 10.32614/cran.package.bayesfactor may be a valid DOI for title: BayesFactor: Computation of bayes factors for comm...
- 10.1201/9781315373461-1 may be a valid DOI for title: knitr: A Comprehensive Tool for Reproducible Resea...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1396.6 files/s, 195212.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              7             44              3           1412
R                               12             76            521           1079
Markdown                         6            219              0            779
YAML                             6             29             12            178
JSON                             1              0              0            131
TeX                              1             10              0            108
Rmd                              3            121            282             28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            36            499            818           3715
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    34  Jeffrey R. Stevens
    27  Jeffrey Stevens

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 894

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (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:

Visualizations with statistical details: The ggstatsplot approach Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil Handling editor: @csoneson (Active) Reviewers: @njtierney, @kevinrue Similarity score: 0.7219

statsExpressions: R Package for Tidy Dataframes and Expressions with Statistical Details Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired) Reviewers: @humanfactors, @tomfaulkenberry Similarity score: 0.7201

cofad: An R package and shiny app for contrast analysis Submitting author: @johannes-titz Handling editor: @chartgerink (Retired) Reviewers: @tianxzhu, @svmiller Similarity score: 0.7160

rempsyc: Convenience functions for psychology Submitting author: @rempsyc Handling editor: @samhforbes (Active) Reviewers: @avakiai, @kinleyid, @brunomontezano Similarity score: 0.7042

BetterReg: An R package for Useful Regression Statistics Submitting author: @chrisaberson Handling editor: @jbytecode (Active) Reviewers: @brunomontezano, @62442katieb Similarity score: 0.7011

⚠️ 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.

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

@JeffreyRStevens – many thanks for your submission to JOSS. I'm going to start a scope review amongst the JOSS editors to decide if this submission is research software as defined by JOSS. This does not mean that it is not software that is useful in research, but just that JOSS might not consider it in scope for review as research software.

This process will likely take a week or so to complete.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[arfon]

:wave: @JeffreyRStevens. Unfortunately, after review by the JOSS editorial team we've determined that this submission doesn't meet our definition of research software, and as such, cannot be published here.

One possible alternative to JOSS is to follow GitHub's guide on how to create a permanent archive and DOI for your software. This DOI can then be used by others to cite your work.

[arfon]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.