[REVIEW]: Reasons: A digital argument mapping library for modern browsers #1044

whedon · 2018-10-22T22:03:28Z

Submitting author: @davekinkead (David Kinkead)
Repository: https://github.com/davekinkead/reasons
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @yochannah
Reviewer: @yochannah, @andytwoods
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2766003

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cdf89c5289d83c0e8f8af99929382324"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cdf89c5289d83c0e8f8af99929382324/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cdf89c5289d83c0e8f8af99929382324/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cdf89c5289d83c0e8f8af99929382324)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@yochannah & @andytwoods, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @yochannah know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @yochannah

Conflict of interest

As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Version: v1.0.1
Authorship: Has the submitting author (@davekinkead) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @andytwoods

Conflict of interest

As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Version: v1.0.1
Authorship: Has the submitting author (@davekinkead) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2018-10-22T22:08:12Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @mbod, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

whedon · 2018-10-22T22:08:12Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2018-10-22T22:08:39Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

yochannah · 2018-11-04T22:26:15Z

👋 @mbod have you had a chance to look at this yet?

yochannah · 2018-12-14T08:32:41Z

Quick status check - is there anything I can do to help progress this? 👍

davekinkead · 2018-12-14T08:34:10Z

Thanks Yo - I’ve just got back from conference season and am working on an issue raised by the reviewer. Dave

…

On 14 Dec 2018, at 9:32 am, Yo Yehudi ***@***.***> wrote: Quick status check - is there anything I can do to help progress this? 👍 — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1044 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlWJe4w2MnupYhQXBVwO9hSWylWn6_Nks5u42IrgaJpZM4X0So1>.

yochannah · 2018-12-14T08:34:58Z

fantastic - feel free to ask any questions on this issue if needed!

yochannah · 2019-01-13T20:40:22Z

Quick status check - let me know when we're ready to move forward or if you have any issues :)

labarba · 2019-02-13T20:08:55Z

👋 @mbod, @andytwoods — hi there, I'm one of the Associate Editors-in-chief, and am doing an audit of stalled submissions. We haven't heard from y'all in a while. Can you check in with us to get an idea of timelines for the review to progress? Thanks!

labarba · 2019-02-13T20:21:07Z

I have just followed up by email with @mbod, who has not shown signs of life here (cc. @yochannah).

yochannah · 2019-02-13T21:49:36Z

thanks @labarba! I think @davekinkead is also working on the issues raised by @andytwoods and will let us know when he is ready to revisit.

davekinkead · 2019-02-14T05:38:07Z

Hi all - I’m overseas at the moment but will be back on campus next week to action anything outstanding. Dave

…

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Feb 2019, at 10:49 pm, Yo Yehudi ***@***.***> wrote: thanks @labarba! I think @davekinkead is also working on the issues raised by @andytwoods and will let us know when he is ready to revisit. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

davekinkead · 2019-03-14T01:37:18Z

All fixed now & good to go. Sorry for the delay.

labarba · 2019-03-14T12:24:11Z

👋 @andytwoods — looks like we're ready for you to take a second look. Thanks!

labarba · 2019-03-14T12:25:01Z

Hi @mbod — we're hoping to hear from you here: can we still expect a review from you?

yochannah · 2019-03-23T22:42:26Z

@mbod, @andytwoods, do you think you might be able to revisit this? Thanks!!!

andytwoods · 2019-03-27T20:09:25Z

congrats! All in order.

labarba · 2019-04-15T01:35:50Z

@yochannah : we have one complete review now, and a second reviewer who has gone MIA. Could you make an assessment at this point about whether we can move forward with acceptance on the basis of the one review we have?

davekinkead · 2019-05-06T16:21:05Z

Hi @labarba any news?

yochannah · 2019-05-12T11:50:23Z

Okay, I've run through the review steps myself. @davekinkead I'll be happy to accept this, one this issue is fixed with the demo code in the repo:

davekinkead/reasons#5

I'll also give the paper a quick once-over again now.

yochannah · 2019-05-12T11:50:42Z

@whedon generate pdf

labarba · 2019-05-12T13:42:38Z

Regarding Wigmore (1913): you are citing the book, not the review of the book, so that DOI is not correct. However, I did find that the book is now in the public domain and you can find an online archive at https://archive.org/details/principlesofjudi00wigm/ — maybe you could add that URL.

davekinkead · 2019-05-12T13:47:44Z

Perfect @labarba!

@whedon generate pdf

davekinkead · 2019-05-12T13:48:39Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2019-05-12T13:48:41Z

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2019-05-12T13:49:07Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

davekinkead · 2019-05-12T13:54:22Z

Comments

#1044 (comment)
#1044 (comment)
#1044 (comment)
#1044 (comment)
#1044 (comment)
#1044 (comment)
#1044 (comment)

have now been actioned. Thanks for your patience @yochannah @labarba

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:18:09Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:18:11Z

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:22:26Z

Oops. Please now make a tagged release, and report the version number here, then make a deposit of your full repository on an archive service like Zenodo, and report the DOI here.

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:23:36Z

@yochannah — Did you tick off the checklist items for @mbod's list? If you, you should edit the comment and put your username there.

davekinkead · 2019-05-12T14:32:54Z

Hi @labarba

Tagged release https://github.com/davekinkead/reasons/releases/tag/v1.0.1
Zendo https://zenodo.org/record/2766003

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:42:23Z

@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:42:26Z

OK. v1.0.1 is the version.

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:44:24Z

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2766003 as archive

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:44:27Z

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2766003 is the archive.

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:45:43Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:45:45Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:46:00Z


OK DOIs

- 10.7208/chicago/9780226028576.001.0001 is OK
- 10.14742/ajet.1154 is OK
- 10.1007/s10734-009-9226-9 is OK
- 10.1007/s11409-012-9092-1 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-9973.1992.tb00551.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x is OK
- 10.1017/cbo9780511840005.005 is OK
- 10.5840/teachphil200427213 is OK
- 10.3200/ctch.53.1.41-48 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.2307/1275020 may be missing for title: The principles of judicial proof: as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:46:06Z

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#682

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#682, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:47:30Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:47:33Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:48:00Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.01044 joss-papers#683
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01044
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:48:39Z

I have now made this edit to the top post: #1044 (comment)

labarba · 2019-05-12T14:49:49Z

Congratulations, @davekinkead, your JOSS paper is now published!

Many thanks to @yochannah, @andytwoods for their work on this submission 🙏

whedon · 2019-05-12T14:49:52Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01044/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01044)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01044">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01044/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01044/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01044

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss

whedon assigned yochannah Oct 22, 2018

whedon added the review label Oct 22, 2018

whedon mentioned this issue Oct 22, 2018

[PRE REVIEW]: Reasons: A digital argument mapping library for modern browsers #976

Closed

This was referenced Oct 23, 2018

review issue. Update installation instructions. davekinkead/reasons#1

Closed

Review issue: functionality davekinkead/reasons#2

Closed

review issue: Automated tests davekinkead/reasons#3

Closed

review issue: community guidelines davekinkead/reasons#4

Closed

whedon assigned andytwoods and mbod May 6, 2019

whedon added the accepted label May 12, 2019

labarba closed this as completed May 12, 2019

whedon added published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. labels Mar 2, 2020

whedon unassigned mbod Mar 2, 2020

[REVIEW]: Reasons: A digital argument mapping library for modern browsers #1044

[REVIEW]: Reasons: A digital argument mapping library for modern browsers #1044

Comments

whedon commented Oct 22, 2018 • edited by labarba Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @yochannah

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @andytwoods

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Oct 22, 2018

whedon commented Oct 22, 2018

whedon commented Oct 22, 2018

yochannah commented Nov 4, 2018

yochannah commented Dec 14, 2018

davekinkead commented Dec 14, 2018 via email

yochannah commented Dec 14, 2018

yochannah commented Jan 13, 2019

labarba commented Feb 13, 2019

labarba commented Feb 13, 2019

yochannah commented Feb 13, 2019

davekinkead commented Feb 14, 2019 via email

davekinkead commented Mar 14, 2019

labarba commented Mar 14, 2019

labarba commented Mar 14, 2019

yochannah commented Mar 23, 2019

andytwoods commented Mar 27, 2019 • edited Loading

labarba commented Apr 15, 2019

davekinkead commented May 6, 2019

yochannah commented May 12, 2019

yochannah commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

davekinkead commented May 12, 2019

davekinkead commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

davekinkead commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

davekinkead commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

labarba commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented May 12, 2019

whedon commented Oct 22, 2018 •

edited by labarba

Loading

andytwoods commented Mar 27, 2019 •

edited

Loading