[PRE REVIEW]: {histoc} histocompatibility functions for organ transplantation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @balima78 (Bruno A Lima) Repository: https://github.com/txopen/histoc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 0.2.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1913c20af5e50aa41711781623339c90"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1913c20af5e50aa41711781623339c90/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1913c20af5e50aa41711781623339c90/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1913c20af5e50aa41711781623339c90)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @balima78. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@balima78 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

[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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (933.4 files/s, 112890.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               21            351            751           2568
HTML                             1             62              5            226
YAML                             6             25              6            189
Markdown                         6             67              0            152
TeX                              1              9              0             87
Rmd                              3             65            104             42
JSON                             1              0              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            39            579            866           3272
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1102

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.32932/pjnh.2020.07.070 is OK
- 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.07.031 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1097/TP.0000000000001326.Predictive is INVALID

[editorialbot]

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @balima78 - thanks for your submission. Due to a current shortage of editors (that we are working to resolve), I'm going to put it on our waiting list until an appropriate editor is available.

In addition, you could work on the invalid DOI that editorialbot suggests. In addition, your use of references in your .md file is not correct, as you can see in the generated PDF. Please follow the example paper. You can make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and use the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right and/or when you've made changes to the paper to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[balima78]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @balima78, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[balima78]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[balima78]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.32932/pjnh.2020.07.070 is OK
- 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.07.031 is OK
- 10.1097/TP.0000000000001326 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[balima78]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[balima78]

hi @danielskatz, thank you for your attention. we corrected editorialbot's suggestions and we are looking forward to hearing from you.

kind regards

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @crvernon as editor

:wave: @crvernon – I realize this is rather left-field for you but I don't think we have an obvious editor to take this submission on. Would you be willing to give it a go? 😄

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot assign @crvernon as editor

No problem at all @arfon . I like left-field 😄.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @crvernon is now the editor

[crvernon]

👋 @balima78 - I'll be your topic editor for this submission.

The first step in this pre-review is to find at least 2 reviewers. 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).

[balima78]

Hello @crvernon , thank you for your availability for this task.

From your list of people, I will suggest: turgeonmaxime brunomontezano GaryBAYLOR aj2duncan ellessenne

best regards

[crvernon]

👋 - @turgeonmaxime Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[crvernon]

👋 - @brunomontezano Would you be willing to review this submission to 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

[brunomontezano]

@crvernon Thanks a lot for the invitation but these coming weeks are going to be really busy for me. I hope I can participate later improving some papers on JOSS. Great review process for you @balima78!

[crvernon]

Thanks @brunomontezano we will keep in touch for future reviews!

[crvernon]

@turgeonmaxime I see you have "thumbs up" the request I sent. I'll add you now! Thanks!

[crvernon]

@editorialbot add @turgeonmaxime as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@turgeonmaxime added to the reviewers list!

[crvernon]

👋 - @ellessenne Would you be willing to review this submission to 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