[PRE REVIEW]: dendroNetwork: a R-package to create networks of dendrochronological data
editorialbot opened this issue · comments
Submitting author: @RonaldVisser (Ronald Visser)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci/dendroNetwork
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.5.4
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Kristen Thyng
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7f03167c08483e6a3214a6747306256"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7f03167c08483e6a3214a6747306256/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7f03167c08483e6a3214a6747306256)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @RonaldVisser. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@RonaldVisser 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
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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.5334/jcaa.79 is OK
- 10.1163/27723194-bja10014 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2020.125750 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2018.01.005 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2019.125644 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2015.05.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2020.125797 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2014.01.004 is OK
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13717 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2018.11.002 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7243539 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10200361 is OK
- 10.1101/gr.1239303 is OK
- 10.1186/s13059-019-1758-4 is OK
- 10.1101/gr.1239303 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.122653799 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03607 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2017.12.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2018.02.005 is OK
- 10.1111/ecog.01335 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2017.10.003 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0196923 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2015.12.006 is OK
- 10.1016/j.dendro.2020.125772 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The igraph software package for complex network re...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: fellingdateR: an R package to facilitate the organ...
INVALID DOIs
- 16/j.dendro.2011.01.010 is INVALID
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2008.01.002 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12600 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.07 s (839.0 files/s, 276582.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown 11 194 0 12323
HTML 1 224 5 1606
XML 3 0 2 1029
TeX 3 54 0 647
SVG 1 0 27 566
R 26 25 361 505
JSON 1 0 0 264
Rmd 6 134 267 130
YAML 4 14 10 73
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 56 645 672 17143
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
123 RonaldVisser
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1264
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
License info:
🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)
This was already reviewed in rOpenSci: ropensci/software-review#627
Hi @RonaldVisser and thanks for your submission! I am looking for some specific items to make sure your submission fits our requirements at a high level (not at the more detailed review level) before moving on to finding an editor or putting this on our waitlist if no relevant editors are available. I'll comment over time as I have a chance to go through them:
- OSI-approved license
- Installation instructions
- Documentation
- Tests of some sort
- Check paper
- Substantial scholarly effort
- Clear research application/in scope
@RonaldVisser I need to ping the editorial board to check if your submission is in scope due to its relatively small size. This will take a few weeks, thanks for your patience.
@editorialbot query scope
Submission flagged for editorial review.
I need to ping the editorial board to check if your submission is in scope due to its relatively small size. This will take a few weeks, thanks for your patience.
@kthyng Thanks! I'll wait patiently :)
@RonaldVisser I've checked in with our editorial board and while the software looks useful, and has already been reviewed with rOpenSci, it is not in scope for JOSS in terms of substantial scholarly effort. Thank you for your interest and check back with us if you expand the scope of the package.
@editorialbot reject
Paper rejected.
@RonaldVisser I've checked in with our editorial board and while the software looks useful, and has already been reviewed with rOpenSci, it is not in scope for JOSS in terms of substantial scholarly effort. Thank you for your interest and check back with us if you expand the scope of the package.
Thanks for checking! I am sad to hear that JOSS feels that way and I do not completely understand what should be expanded.
@RonaldVisser I am sorry for my delay in responding. We have an approximate bar for substantial scholarly effort to publish with JOSS partly because our mission is to treat research software as equivalent publishing units to those used in the academic world, which also has such a bar. Your software fell on the small side relative to the bar we have chosen, which is inherently imperfect but nonetheless necessary. Please take a look at that link for more details. Thanks.