joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[PRE REVIEW]: datawizard: An R Package for Easy Data Preparation and Statistical Transformations
Submitting author: @IndrajeetPatil (Indrajeet Patil) Repository: https://github.com/easystats/datawizard Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.5.0 Editor: @osorensen Reviewers: @tomfaulkenberry Managing EiC: Arfon Smith
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e091e4c73d855e87d0d774eafed63964"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e091e4c73d855e87d0d774eafed63964/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e091e4c73d855e87d0d774eafed63964)
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @IndrajeetPatil. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@IndrajeetPatil if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.10 s (1551.9 files/s, 251228.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 111 2566 4340 10841
Markdown 25 459 0 1813
XML 1 0 129 1787
Rmd 4 435 786 496
TeX 2 47 0 272
YAML 7 57 17 237
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 150 3564 5272 15446
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.21105/joss.02815 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02445 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03393 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03139 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01412 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02306 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03167 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01541 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Here are a few reviewer suggestions:
- Ohmaddi
- russellpierce
- mariacuellar
- tomfaulkenberry
- cimentadaj
- RMHogervorst
@IndrajeetPatil - thanks for your submission to JOSS. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.
For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!
👋 @tomfaulkenberry @cimentadaj @RMHogervorst @cimentadaj would any of 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
@osorensen I am not sure how many reviewers are typically required, but here are a few more suggestions:
- trinker
- garretrc
- MatthewSmith430
- cdcrabtree
- jakobbossek
- tweed1e
👋 @trinker @garretrc @MatthewSmith430 would any of 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
@osorensen A few more suggestions for possible reviewers:
- nhtran93
- njtierney
- pmyteh
- gabett
- chrisaberson
- dhvalden
- jaeyk
Thanks @IndrajeetPatil! I guess many are on holiday in August, because it's usually much easier to find reviewers.
👋 @nhtran93 @njtierney @pmyteh @gabett would any of 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
@osorensen I am able to review, and I'll switch my github email to something I check more often 👍
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4684.
Just clarifying if you still need a reviewer?
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 7:20 pm, Øystein Sørensen @.***> wrote:
👋 @nhtran93 https://github.com/nhtran93 @njtierney https://github.com/njtierney @pmyteh https://github.com/pmyteh @gabett https://github.com/gabett would any of 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
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4659#issuecomment-1219372286, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABRQDJJG26I4YTKRZ27MIXLVZYMA3ANCNFSM5527JCUQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Yes @njtierney, that would be much appreciated. If you're willing to review, I'll add you in #4684
Hi @osorensen - I actually don't have much time over the next 6 weeks due to travel, so I will bow out of this, this time.