[PRE REVIEW]: CRSocket: A web app component facilitating the administration of digital trials from a separate device about joss-reviews HOT 57 CLOSED

Hi - sorry for only getting back here now, this week has been busy! @henrikdvn thanks for suggesting reviewers! @oliviaguest I'll take this on then.

from joss-reviews.

@britta-wstnr, @oliviaguest: Compiles now. There was an issue with the metadata due to a last minute auto-indent.

from joss-reviews.

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

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.04 s (1623.5 files/s, 224682.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      13            819            748           3059
HTML                            28            229              0           2194
PHP                             20            276            284            852
Markdown                         3            143              0            620
TeX                              1              9              0            152
CSS                              3             50              4             87
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            69           1527           1040           6982
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119241 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0260695 is OK
- 10.1111/desc.13193 is OK
- 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101649 is OK
- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1061528 is OK
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01021 is OK
- 10.1002/acp.3569 is OK
- 10.1177/0894439319851503 is OK
- 10.3233/JAD-160545 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 1082

from joss-reviews.

@britta-wstnr do you have capacity for this? 😊

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

Hi - this seems to be a bit outside of my expertise, so I would like to read the paper first to get a better overview! 🙂
But it seems to not be compiling, @henrikdvn can you have a look at that?

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@henrikdvn can you try putting the paper at the top level in the repo? I think this causes the problem with generating the pdf?

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot generate pdf

from joss-reviews.

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

from joss-reviews.

@oliviaguest
Regarding reviewers: Would be interesting to hear what some of these think of my software:
lukaszjablonski, Milantex, abhishekvp, kinow

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot commands

from joss-reviews.

Hello @henrikdvn, 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

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

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

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot check repository

from joss-reviews.

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.05 s (1305.1 files/s, 180597.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      13            819            748           3059
HTML                            28            229              0           2194
PHP                             20            276            284            852
Markdown                         3            143              0            619
TeX                              1              9              0            152
CSS                              3             50              4             87
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            69           1527           1040           6981
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

from joss-reviews.

Wordcount for paper.md is 1079

from joss-reviews.

@britta-wstnr: Sorry about the mess with the paper, but it compiles now. Don't know about the technical part, but I think the research significance may be within your field. Also found some reviewers on the list that I think should be able to review the software:
lukaszjablonski, Milantex, abhishekvp, kinow.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot invite @britta-wstnr as editor

from joss-reviews.

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot assign @britta-wstnr as editor

from joss-reviews.

Assigned! @britta-wstnr is now the editor

from joss-reviews.

To be transparent about the progress: I have reached out to reviewers via e-mail.

from joss-reviews.

@britta-wstnr Thanks. Is it ok to make minor changes at this stage? I sort of get blind for mistakes etc. when writing things and tend to discover them when I take a second look after a few day's break.

from joss-reviews.

You mean for the paper @henrikdvn ? That should be fine, go ahead!

from joss-reviews.

No success in inviting reviewers via e-mail so far, moving it here ...

from joss-reviews.

Hi @abhishekvp and @lukaszjablonski 👋

Would you be willing to review the submission:
CRSocket: A web app component facilitating the administration of digital trials from a separate device
for The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

The review concerns the software CRSocket and a short paper about it. The review happens fully on GitHub.

You can learn more about the the review process and our conflict of interest policy in the reviewer guidelines here.

If you are available to review this submission, please let me know and I can add you as a reviewer. The review process will start (in a separate GitHub issue) once a sufficient number of reviewers have been found.

Thank you!
Britta

from joss-reviews.

Thank you @britta-wstnr. Yes, sure. I'm happy to review it.

from joss-reviews.

Great, @lukaszjablonski, I appreciate it! 🙏
The reviewing process will start once I have found a sufficient number of reviewers, you will get pinged once we move forward.

from joss-reviews.

Ping @abhishekvp 👋
Kind reminder for my review invitation (see comment above) 🙏

from joss-reviews.

Hi @rabdill and @Milantex👋

Would you be willing to review the submission:
CRSocket: A web app component facilitating the administration of digital trials from a separate device
for The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)?

The review concerns the software CRSocket and a short paper about it. The review happens fully on GitHub.

You can learn more about the the review process and our conflict of interest policy in the reviewer guidelines here.

If you are available to review this submission, please let me know and I can add you as a reviewer. The review process will start (in a separate GitHub issue) once a sufficient number of reviewers have been found.

Thank you!
Britta

from joss-reviews.

Hi @britta-wstnr, I'd be happy to review.

from joss-reviews.

Hi @rabdill - that's great, I appreciate it! 🙏
I'll start the reviewing process soon - you'll get pinged about it.

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @rabdill as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@rabdill added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot add @lukaszjablonski as reviewer

from joss-reviews.

@lukaszjablonski added to the reviewers list!

from joss-reviews.

Hi @lukaszjablonski and @rabdill ,
hi @henrikdvn,

let's move this submission to the reviewing step 🌱 . That means that this PRE-REVIEW will be closed and you will be pinged in a new thread - there'll be detailed info how to proceed there!

from joss-reviews.

@editorialbot start review

from joss-reviews.

OK, I've started the review over in #5658.

from joss-reviews.