You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
5
+
review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
6
+
to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you
7
+
to work on them before the review process begins.
8
+
9
+
- [ ] **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).
10
+
- [ ] **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:
11
+
- [ ] tutorials or vignettes 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")
12
+
- [ ] API documentation - this includes clearly written doc strings with variables defined using a standard docstring format
13
+
- [ ] README that clearly articulates the function of the package
14
+
- [ ] Contributing documentation that details how to install a development environment and how to contribute to the package
15
+
- [ ] **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).
16
+
- [ ] **Automated tests:** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
17
+
- [ ] **License:** The package has an [OSI approved license](https://opensource.org/licenses)
18
+
- [ ] **Repository:** The repository link resolves correctly
19
+
- [ ] **README:** The package has a README with clear explanation of what the package does and instructions on how to install it along with development instructions.
20
+
- [ ] **Contributing statement:** The package has a contributing.md file that details how to contribute to the package.
21
+
- [ ] **Package overlap:** That package doesn't fully overlap with functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci
22
+
- [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
23
+
- [ ] **Version** (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
24
+
25
+
---
26
+
- [ ] [Initial onboarding survey was filled out ](https://forms.gle/F9mou7S3jhe8DMJ16)
27
+
We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. :raised_hands:
28
+
Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. :raised_hands:
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: software-peer-review-guide/editor-in-chief-guide.md
+39-61
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -40,101 +40,78 @@ the scope and readiness of a package to be reviewed, they may opt to assign an e
40
40
41
41
When a new package is submitted for review, the Editor in Chief will:
42
42
43
-
### 1. ✅ Tag the issue with `1/editor-checks` tag in GitHub
43
+
### 1. ✔️ Tag the issue with `1/editor-checks` tag in GitHub
44
44
45
-
### 2. ✅ Next, they will use the {ref}`template <editor-checklist-template>` below in the issue
45
+
### 2. ✔️ Add the editor checks to the issue
46
46
47
-
This step serves to check whether the package has
48
-
the bare minimum requirements to initiate a review (or they will assign that task to an editor as stated above).
49
-
These checks ensure that the package is ready to be reviewed.
47
+
Copy the {ref}`template below <editor-checklist-template>`
48
+
and add it to the issue.
50
49
51
-
Following this step will ensure that we are using our volunteer reviewer time effectively.
50
+
Editor checks ensure that the package has
51
+
the bare minimum requirements to initiate a review.
52
+
We hope that even the process of going through these checks will
53
+
improve the quality of the package.
52
54
53
-
In some situations, these checks may be passed down to an editor including:
55
+
In some situations, the editor-in-chief initial checks may be passed down to an editor as follows:
54
56
55
57
* If the Editor in Chief is overwhelmed with package submissions to evaluate
56
58
* If the Editor in Chief simply is busy at the time and needs support with checks
57
59
* If the Editor in Chief thinks that the checks might be better served if done by an Editor
58
60
(For instance if a specific domain or technical expertise would support more effective checks)
59
61
60
-
61
62
(editor-checklist-template)=
62
-
### Editor checklist (copy template below to use in the issue)
63
-
64
-
```markdown
65
-
## Editor in Chief checks
66
-
67
-
Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
68
-
review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
69
-
to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you
70
-
to work on them before the review process begins.
71
-
72
-
- [ ] **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).
73
-
- [ ] **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:
74
-
- [ ] tutorials or vignettes 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")
75
-
- [ ] API documentation - this includes clearly written doc strings with variables defined using a standard docstring format
76
-
- [ ] README that clearly articulates the function of the package
77
-
- [ ] Contributing documentation that details how to install a development environment and how to contribute to the package
78
-
- [ ] **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).
79
-
- [ ] **Automated tests:** Package has a testing suite and is tested via GitHub actions or another Continuous Integration service.
80
-
- [ ] **License:** The package has an [OSI approved license](https://opensource.org/licenses)
81
-
- [ ] **Repository:** The repository link resolves correctly
82
-
- [ ] **README:** The package has a README with clear explanation of what the package does and instructions on how to install it along with development instructions.
83
-
- [ ] **Contributing statement:** The package has a contributing.md file that details how to contribute to the package.
84
-
- [ ] **Package overlap:** That package doesn't fully overlap with functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci
85
-
- [ ] **Archive** (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
86
-
- [ ] **Version** (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
87
-
88
-
---
89
-
- [ ] [Initial onboarding survey was filled out ](https://forms.gle/F9mou7S3jhe8DMJ16)
90
-
We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. :raised_hands:
91
-
Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. :raised_hands:
### 3. ✅ Finally they will ensure the onboarding survey is filled out.
70
+
### 3. ✔️ Ensure that the package onboarding survey is filled out.
102
71
103
-
Thank the authors graciously for doing this. They can skip sections of it if they wish, but we do need their contact information and we do want to track their experience with our review process and organization.
72
+
Thank the authors graciously for filling our our survey. They can
73
+
skip sections of it if they wish. We do need their contact
74
+
information to stay in touch about package maintenance. We also
75
+
want to track their experience with our review process and
76
+
organization.
104
77
105
-
### 4. ✅ Assign an editor to the issue to manage the rest of the review
78
+
### 4. ✔️ Assign an editor to the issue to manage the rest of the review
106
79
107
80
Once the package initial checks are complete, and it is determined that
108
81
the package is in scope for pyOpenSci review, the Editor in Chief will assign an
109
82
editor to the review issue. The editor will begin the process of finding reviewers
110
83
for the package. [Check out the editor guide for more information on this process](editors-guide.md)
111
84
112
-
### 5. ✅ Update the YAML header of the issue
85
+
### 5. ✔️ Update the YAML header of the issue
113
86
114
87
Once all of the above is complete, the Editor in Chief should:
115
88
116
-
- Add any comments to the bottom of your editor checks comment
117
-
- Update the yaml in the header of the issue with the editor assigned to the review
118
-
- Add the tag `2/seeking-reviewer(s)` to the issue.
89
+
* Add any comments to the bottom of your editor checks comment
90
+
* Update the yaml in the header of the issue with the editor assigned to the review
91
+
* Add the tag `2/seeking-reviewer(s)` to the issue.
92
+
93
+
## A note about submissions that are incomplete or vague
94
+
95
+
In some cases:
119
96
120
-
## A Note about submissions that are incomplete or vague
97
+
* online documentation of a package is sparse,
98
+
* the README is minimal or hard to understand or
99
+
* there is no clear documentation setup.
100
+
* elements of the YAML template at the top of the issue are not filled out.
121
101
122
-
In some cases online documentation of a package is sparse, the README is
123
-
minimal or hard to understand or there is no clear documentation setup. Or
124
-
in other cases some of the YAML at the top of the issue is missing.
125
102
This makes assessment of the package's scope much harder.
126
-
In this case, please ask for more information. Even if the package is deemed
103
+
In this case, please ask the author for more information. Even if the package is deemed
127
104
out-of-scope, the package documentation will improve as a result of your questions.
128
105
129
-
Example text
106
+
Example text:
130
107
131
108
```markdown
132
109
Hello <username> and many thanks for your submission.
133
110
134
111
We are discussing whether the package is in scope and need a bit more
135
112
information.
136
113
137
-
Would you mind adding more details and context to your `README` file?
114
+
Please add more details and context to your `README` file.
138
115
After reading it, someone with little domain knowledge should understand
139
116
the aim, goals and functionality of the package.
140
117
@@ -145,8 +122,9 @@ to mention in your documentation (README) and in this issue [how it is "best in
145
122
146
123
```
147
124
148
-
###Responding to out-of-scope submissions
125
+
## Responding to out-of-scope submissions
149
126
150
-
If the package is determined to be out-of-scope, the Editor in Chief should thank authors for their submission,
151
-
explain the reasons for the decision, and direct them to other publication venues
152
-
if relevant. If further discussion is warranted that can take place within the issue.
127
+
If the package is determined to be out-of-scope, the Editor in Chief should
128
+
thank authors for their submission, explain the reasons for the decision, and
129
+
direct them to other publication venues if relevant. If further discussion is
0 commit comments