[REVIEW]: openmpp: An R package for dynamic microsimulation modeling using OpenM++

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mattwarkentin@mikemahoney218<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @agerada, @evaenns Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de8d12fa9e78d8c204a36920fe6ce828"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de8d12fa9e78d8c204a36920fe6ce828/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de8d12fa9e78d8c204a36920fe6ce828/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de8d12fa9e78d8c204a36920fe6ce828)

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

@agerada & @evaenns, 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 @mikemahoney218 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

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

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

editorialbot commented 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.02 s (2119.5 files/s, 167766.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               35            213            680           1709
Markdown                         5            130              0            418
YAML                             3             18              5            105
Rmd                              1             81            118             47
TeX                              1              3              0             35
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            45            445            803           2314
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    74  Matt Warkentin
    21  Matthew T. Warkentin

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.32614/CRAN.package.R6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: openmpp: Programmatic interface to the OpenM++ mic...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OpenM++: open source microsimulation platform

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 859

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

mikemahoney218 commented 2 weeks ago

👋🏼 @mattwarkentin, @agerada, @evaenns this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains 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 openjournals/joss-reviews#7435 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 reviews to be completed within about 4 weeks. Please let me know if you require some more time.

Please feel free to ping me (@mikemahoney218) if you have any questions/concerns.

openjournals / joss-reviews