Edits to peer review guide on massive reorganization of guide

Edits to peer review guide

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update appendices/editor-in-chief-checks.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update appendices/pre-review-package-requirements.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update appendices/pre-review-package-requirements.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update appendices/reviewer-request-template.md

Co-authored-by: Alexandre Batisse <[email protected]>

Update appendices/reviewer-request-template.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update appendices/reviewer-request-template.md

Co-authored-by: Alexandre Batisse <[email protected]>

Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update appendices/package-approval-template.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Alexandre Batisse <[email protected]>

Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update software-peer-review-guide/intro.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Update software-peer-review-guide/reviewer-guide.md

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Ariane Sasso <[email protected]>

Author: lwasser

about-peer-review/pyopensci-related-joss-ropensci.md

@@ -56,5 +56,5 @@ You do not need to go through two reviews!
 Once accepted by JOSS, you now have both a pyOpenSci acceptance and one by JOSS. 
 
 * JOSS will give you a Crossref DOI for citation. 
-* And you can display that and your pyOpenSci peer reviewed badge at the top of your package's README.md file. 
+* You can display that and your pyOpenSci peer reviewed badge at the top of your package's README.md file. 
 

appendices/editor-in-chief-checks.md

@@ -6,20 +6,20 @@ review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
 to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you 
 to work on them before the review process begins. 
 
-- [ ] **Installation** The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda)
-  - [ ] The package imports properly into a standard Python environment `import package-name`
-- [ ] **Fit**: The package meets criteria for [fit](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-scope) and [overlap](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-overlap).
-- [ ] **Documentation** The package has sufficient documentation available online (README, sphinx docs) to allow us to evaluate package function and scope *without installing the package*. This includes:
+- [ ] **Installation** The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
+  - [ ] The package imports properly into a standard Python environment `import package-name`.
+- [ ] **Fit** The package meets criteria for [fit](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-scope) and [overlap](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-overlap).
+- [ ] **Documentation** The package has sufficient online documentation (README, sphinx docs) to allow us to evaluate package function and scope *without installing the package*. This includes:
   - [ ] Short tutorials or [vignettes](https://kbroman.org/pkg_primer/pages/vignettes.html) that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them (often these have a name like "Getting started")
-  - [ ] API documentation: this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format. *We suggest using the [Numpy](https://numpydoc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/format.html#docstring-standard) docstring format.*
-  - [ ] **README:** The package has a `README.md` file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions. 
-  - [ ] **Contributing File:** The package has a `CONTRIBUTING.md` file that details how to install and contribute to the package. 
-- [ ] **Issue Submission Documentation**: All of the information is filled out in the `YAML` header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
-- [ ] **Automated tests:** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
-- [ ] **License:** The package has an [OSI approved license](https://opensource.org/licenses)
-- [ ] **Repository:** The repository link resolves correctly
-- [ ] **Package overlap:** That package doesn't fully overlap with functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci
-- [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
+  - [ ] API documentation: this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format. *We suggest using the [Numpy](https://numpydoc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/format.html#docstring-standard) docstring format*.
+  - [ ] **README** The package has a `README.md` file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions. 
+  - [ ] **Contributing File** The package has a `CONTRIBUTING.md` file that details how to install and contribute to the package. 
+- [ ] **Issue Submission Documentation** All of the information is filled out in the `YAML` header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
+- [ ] **Automated tests** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
+- [ ] **License** The package has an [OSI approved license](https://opensource.org/licenses).
+- [ ] **Repository** The repository link resolves correctly.
+- [ ] **Package overlap** The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
+- [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
 - [ ] **Version** (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
 
 ---

appendices/package-approval-template.md

@@ -5,15 +5,15 @@
 There are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:
 - [ ] Activate [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/) watching the repo if you haven't already done so.
 - [ ] Tag and create a release to create a Zenodo version and DOI.
-- [ ] Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md of <package-name-here>. The badge should be `[![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number)`
-- [ ] Add <package-name> to the pyOpenSci website. <maintainer-name>, please open a pr to update [this file](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/pyopensci.github.io/blob/main/_data/packages.yml): to add your package and name to the list of contributors
+- [ ] Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md of <package-name-here>. The badge should be `[![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number)`.
+- [ ] Add <package-name> to the pyOpenSci website. <maintainer-name>, please open a pr to update [this file](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/pyopensci.github.io/blob/main/_data/packages.yml): to add your package and name to the list of contributors.
 - [ ] <reviewers-and-maintainers> if you have time and are open to being listed on our website, please add yourselves to [this file](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/pyopensci.github.io/blob/main/_data/contributors.yml) via a pr so we can list you on our website as contributors!
 
 <IF JOSS SUBMISSION>
 It looks like you would like to submit this package to JOSS. Here are the next steps:
 
 - [ ] Login to the JOSS website and fill out the JOSS submission form using your Zenodo DOI. **When you fill out the form, be sure to mention and link to the approved pyOpenSci review.** JOSS will tag your package for expedited review if it is already pyOpenSci approved.
-- [ ] Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check)
+- [ ] Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check).
 - [ ] Once the package is approved by JOSS, you will be given instructions by JOSS about updating the citation information in your README file.
 - [ ] When the JOSS review is complete, add a comment to your review in the pyOpenSci software-review repo that it has been approved by JOSS.
 

appendices/pre-review-package-requirements.md

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 
-- [ ] **Fit**: The package meets criteria for [fit](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-scope) and [overlap](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-overlap).
-    - [ ] **Package overlap:** That package doesn't fully overlap with functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci
-- [ ] **Documentation** The package has sufficient documentation available online (README, sphinx docs) to allow us to evaluate package function and scope *without installing the package*. This includes:
-  - [ ] Get started vignettes or tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them
-  - [ ] API documentation - this includes clearly written doc strings with variables defined using a standard docstring format
-- [ ] **README.md File:** The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the packages does and instructions on how to install it along with development instructions.  
-   - [ ] the README file clearly articulates the function of the package
-- [ ] **CONTRIBUTING.md file:** The package has a `CONTRIBUTING.md` file that details how to install and contribute to the package. 
-- [ ] **Automated tests:** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
-- [ ] **License:** The package has an OSI accepted license
-- [ ] **Repository:** The package repository link resolves correctly
+- [ ] **Fit** The package meets criteria for [fit](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-scope) and [overlap](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/about-peer-review/aims-and-scope.html#package-overlap).
+    - [ ] **Package overlap** That package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
+- [ ] **Documentation** The package has sufficient online documentation (README, sphinx docs) to allow us to evaluate package function and scope *without installing the package*. This includes:
+  - [ ] Get started vignettes or tutorials that help users understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
+  - [ ] API documentation - this includes clearly written doc strings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
+- [ ] **README.md File** The package has a README.md file with a clear explanation of what the package does and instructions on how to install it, along with development instructions.  
+   - [ ] README file clearly articulates the function of the package.
+- [ ] **CONTRIBUTING.md file** The package has a `CONTRIBUTING.md` file that details how to install and contribute to the package. 
+- [ ] **Automated tests** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
+- [ ] **License** The package has an OSI accepted license.
+- [ ] **Repository** The package repository link resolves correctly.

appendices/reviewer-request-template.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 Dear [REVIEWER-Name],
 
 Hi, this is [EDITOR-Name]. [FRIENDLY BANTER]. I'm writing to ask if you have time 
-to review a package for pyOpenSci. pyOpenSci has an ope peer review of open source Python packages that support science. Accepted packages become a part of our pyOpenSci ecosystem of vetted community-adopted tools. Our review process is similar to that 
+to review a package for pyOpenSci. pyOpenSci has an open peer review of open source Python packages that support science. Accepted packages become a part of our pyOpenSci ecosystem of vetted community-adopted tools. Our review process is similar to that 
 of open journals however it focuses on ensuring high quality packaging approaches 
 that are inline with community adopted Python standards. 
 
 The package, [PACKAGE] by [AUTHOR(S)], does [FUNCTION]. You can find it on GitHub here: [REPO LINK]. We conduct our open review process via GitHub as well, here: [ONBOARDING ISSUE]
 
-If you accept, note that we ask reviewers to complete reviews in three weeks. (We’ve found it takes a similar amount of time to review a package as an academic paper.)
+If you accept, note that we ask reviewers to complete reviews in three weeks (We’ve found it takes a similar amount of time to review a package as an academic paper.).
 
-Our [reviewers guide](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/software-peer-review-guide/reviewer-guide.html) details what we look for in a package review, and includes links to example reviews.  We also include a reviewer template on that page that you can use to guide your review. Our Python packaging standards are detailed in our [packaging guide](https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide). 
+Our [reviewers guide](https://www.pyopensci.org/peer-review-guide/software-peer-review-guide/reviewer-guide.html) details what we look for in a package review, and includes links to example reviews. We also include a reviewer template on that page that you can use to guide your review. Our Python packaging standards are detailed in our [packaging guide](https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide). 
 
 If you have time, please have a look at the package first, to make 
 sure that you do not have a conflict of interest with the package authors. 

appendices/scope.md

@@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ pyOpenSci domain scope.
 
 To be in technical scope for a pyOpenSci review, your package:
 
-* Should have maintenance workflows documented 
-* Should be structured in a way that someone else could contribute to it
-* Should vendor dependencies using standard approaches rather than including code from other packages within your repository. 
+* Should have maintenance workflows documented.
+* Should be structured in a way that someone else could contribute to it.
+* Should declare vendor dependencies using standard approaches rather than including code from other packages within your repository. 
 
 ### Notes on scope categories
 - pyOpenSci is still developing as a community. If your scientific Python 
@@ -28,11 +28,11 @@ questions, we'd encourage you to open a pre-submission inquiry. We're happy to h
 hyper-specific methods for one type of data to general, do-it-all packages 
 (e.g. matplotlib). pyOpenSci accepts packages that are somewhere in between the 
 two. If you're interested in submitting your data visualization package, please 
-open a pre-submission inquiry on first.
+open a pre-submission inquiry first.
 
 ## Python package technical scope
 
-pyOpenSci is may continue to update it's technical scope criteria for package 
+pyOpenSci may continue to update its technical scope criteria for package
 review as more packages with varying structural approaches are reviewed.  
 Your package **may not be in technical scope** for us to review at this time if
 fits any of the out-of-technical-scope criteria listed below. 
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ package repository to a new organization along with PyPI credentials. A new
 organization would allow transfer of ownership of package maintenance rather 
 than several forks existing.
 
-Of your package is a divergent fork of a maintained repository we will encourage you 
+If your package is a divergent fork of a maintained repository we will encourage you 
 to work with the original maintainers to merge efforts. 
 
 However, if there is a case where a forked repository is warranted, please 

software-peer-review-guide/author-guide.md

@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ will evaluated by JOSS through the pyOpenSci review
 - To complete the JOSS submission, you will also need to craft a **paper.md** 
 file describing the package following JOSS' standards (see below). More detail on the requirements for JOSS can be found on [their website](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#what-should-my-paper-contain).
 - If you choose to opt into the pyOpenSci / JOSS partnership in your review, 
-you do NOT need to go through a second review with JOSS. JOSS accepts our review
+you DO NOT need to go through a second review with JOSS. JOSS accepts our review
 for theirs. Please start a review process with JOSS and reference the pyOpenSci
 review issue where your package was accepted. Make sure
 that you let the JOSS editor know that we have already accepted your package. The JOSS editor will review your paper and once that is accepted you now have a JOSS DOI and badge to display on your README file as well!  

software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md

@@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ It is important that this step occur in one post rather than a string of
 conversational feedback that is more difficult to follow. This allows the author to address all issues at 
 one time. Thus the EIC should:
 
-1. Review the checklist
-1. Give the author a rough estimate of how long the checks might take to complete
-1. Perform all of the checks locally
+1. Review the checklist.
+1. Give the author a rough estimate of how long the checks might take to complete.
+1. Perform all of the checks locally.
 1. When all of the above are complete, post the checklist with any feedback for the author in the issue. This should be one single post. 
 ```
 
@@ -65,10 +65,10 @@ improve the quality of the package.
 
 In some situations, the editor-in-chief initial checks may be passed down to an editor as follows:
 
-* If the Editor in Chief is overwhelmed with package submissions to evaluate 
-* If the Editor in Chief simply is busy at the time and needs support with checks 
+* If the Editor in Chief is overwhelmed with package submissions to evaluate.
+* If the Editor in Chief simply is busy at the time and needs support with checks.
 * If the Editor in Chief thinks that the checks might be better served if done by an Editor 
-(For instance if a specific domain or technical expertise would support more effective checks)
+(For instance, if a specific domain or technical expertise would support more effective checks).
 
 (editor-checklist-template)=
 ### Editor-in-chief checklist 
@@ -97,18 +97,18 @@ for the package. [Check out the editor guide for more information on this proces
 
 Once all of the above is complete, the Editor in Chief should:
 
-* Add any comments to the bottom of your editor checks comment
-* Update the yaml in the header of the issue with the editor assigned to the review 
+* Add any comments to the bottom of your editor checks comment.
+* Update the YAML in the issue's header with the editor assigned to the review.
 * Add the tag `2/seeking-reviewer(s)` to the issue.
 
 ## A note about submissions that are incomplete or vague
 
 In some cases:
 
-* online documentation of a package is sparse, 
-* the README is minimal or hard to understand or 
-* there is no clear documentation setup. 
-* elements of the YAML template at the top of the issue are not filled out. 
+* Online documentation of a package is sparse.
+* README is minimal or hard to understand.
+* No clear documentation setup.
+* Elements of the YAML template at the top of the issue are not filled out.
 
 This makes assessment of the package's scope much harder. 
 In this case, please ask the author for more information. Even if the package is deemed