heyo

[lwasser]

Submitting Author: ( ) All current maintainers: (@github_handle1, @github_handle2) Package Name: Package name here One-Line Description of Package: Description here Repository Link: https://www.github.com/pyopensci/pyosmeta Version submitted: Editor-in-Chief: TBD Editor: TBD
Reviewers:
Archive: lalala JOSS DOI: TBD Version accepted: v123
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• [ ] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• [ ] I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories. Check out our package scope page to learn more about our scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [ ] Data extraction
  • [ ] Data processing/munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Data validation and testing
  • [ ] Data visualization[^1]
  • [ ] Workflow automation
  • [ ] Citation management and bibliometrics
  • [ ] Scientific software wrappers
  • [ ] Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• [ ] Geospatial
• [ ] Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an existing community please check below:

• [ ] Astropy: Link coming soon to standards
• [ ] Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

[^1]: Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package.

• For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

  • If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• [ ] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• [ ] uses an OSI approved license.
• [ ] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• [ ] includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• [ ] contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [ ] has a test suite.
• [ ] has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• [ ] Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

- [ ] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process **does not** guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS. - [ ] The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria. - [ ] The package contains a `paper.md` matching [JOSS's requirements][JossPaperRequirements] with a high-level description in the package root or in `inst/`. - [ ] The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: *Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.*

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• [x] Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• [ ] I have read the author guide.
• [ ] I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• [ ] Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers and editors to fill this out.

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

[pyosbot]

Hey @lwasser :wave: welcome to pyOpenSci’s scientific Python peer review process!

We’ve seen your message. Someone from our editorial team will get back to you within the next week about this submission. In the meantime, feel free to check out our packaging guide or feel free to ask questions on our Discourse forum.

[pyosbot]

The submission template is missing the following values: version-submitted, target-repository, author-handle

[lwasser]

@pyosbot help

[pyosbot]

Hello @lwasser, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@pyosbot help

# Show our community Code of Conduct and Guidelines
@pyosbot code of conduct

# Allow editors to move the review to EiC checks
@pyosbot assign eic

# Post the editor response template
@pyosbot editor response

# Replies to package accepted
@pyosbot package accepted

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@pyosbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@pyosbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@pyosbot remove editor

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot add @reviewer-login as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot remove @reviewer-login from reviewers

# Label issue with: 2/seeking-reviewers. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned
@pyosbot seeking reviewers

# Label issue with: 3/reviewer(s)-assigned. Remove labels: 2/seeking-reviewers
@pyosbot reviewers assigned

# Label issue with: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes. Remove labels: 3/reviewer(s)-assigned
@pyosbot reviews are in

# Label issue with: 5/awaiting-reviewer-response. Remove labels: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot author response complete

# Label issue with: 7/under-joss-review. Remove labels: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot begin joss

# Label issue with: 9/joss-approved. Remove labels: 7/under-joss-review
@pyosbot joss approved

# Set a value for version
@pyosbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for archive
@pyosbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7158585 as archive

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@pyosbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Perform checks on the repository
# Optionally, it can be run on a non-default branch 
@pyosbot check repository
@pyosbot check repository from branch custom-branch-name

[lwasser]

@pyosbot check repository

[pyosbot]

I couldn't find the URL for the target repository

[lwasser]

@pyosbot check repository

[lwasser]

@pyosbot set v123 as version

[pyosbot]

Done! version is now v123

[lwasser]

@pyosbot set archive as lalala

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot set lalala as archive

[pyosbot]

Done! archive is now lalala