Akhil Krishna R

Hi, In addition to the reviewer checklist outlined in issue #200, I would like to suggest the inclusion of the following items to enhance the review process: [ ] Test...

Thanks @lwasser I'd be happy to initiate a discussion on Slack and hear the team's thoughts on incorporating these checklist items. I’ll post a summary there and link back to...

@hamogu thank you for raising it here also, I agree that licensing compliance can be a gray area and certainly not something we want reviewers to make legal judgments on....

Thanks for this detailed perspective, @hamogu it’s really helpful. I completely agree that keeping things simple and manageable for reviewers is crucial, especially given the complexity and uncertainty surrounding licensing...

> Hi, > > In addition to the reviewer checklist outlined in issue [#200](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-peer-review/issues/200), I would like to suggest the inclusion of the following items to enhance the review process:...

## Package Review - [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are...

Hi @Manalclay , Thanks for considering my suggestions!. I personally think it would be really helpful to implement the --gui option with a graphical input file chooser to make the...

@Manalclay Thanks for pointing that out — you're absolutely right. In this case, a well-written usage guide in the README.md is sufficient. As long as it explains how to install,...

I found that tests are already covered in this issue: https://github.com/pyOpenSci/python-package-guide/issues/59#issuecomment-2873607531 I'm realising now that the current "Tests" section already does a solid job of covering the basics. As a...

Yes, the second option, creating a `CITATION.cff` file in the root of the `software-submission` repository — would be ideal, as it allows GitHub to automatically display a citation widget in...