[REVIEW]: Weave.jl: Scientific Reports Using Julia

[whedon]

Submitting author: @mpastell (Matti Pastell)
Repository: https://github.com/mpastell/weave.jl
Version: v0.4.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @vchuravy
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.398871

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bf6de6f2bf94f31924fdcfa48b92434e"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bf6de6f2bf94f31924fdcfa48b92434e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bf6de6f2bf94f31924fdcfa48b92434e/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/bf6de6f2bf94f31924fdcfa48b92434e)

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 questions

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

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: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.4.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mpastell) made major contributions to the software?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

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)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS. @vchuravy 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 as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

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

2. 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

[vchuravy]

@arfon How would I update the version number of the package for submission? I am nearly done with my review, but I think a point or minor release would be good to give a smooth user experience.

[vchuravy]

Also didn't we used to generate a preview of the PDF?

[arfon]

@arfon How would I update the version number of the package for submission? I am nearly done with my review, but I think a point or minor release would be good to give a smooth user experience.

@vchuravy - I can do this. What's the new release number?

Also didn't we used to generate a preview of the PDF?

Yeah, I usually do this at the end of the review during processing now. We plan to automate this in the future.

[vchuravy]

The new version is v0.4.1.

[arfon]

@vchuravy - here's the compiled paper PDF for your review 10.21105.joss.00204.pdf

[vchuravy]

Nice! @mpastell updated one citation and I think we are good to go here 👍

[vchuravy]

@arfon anything else left to do?

[arfon]

@vchuravy - if this is all good then it's over to myself and @mpastell to wrap this up.

@mpastell - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[mpastell]

@vchuravy Many thanks for the review!

@arfon The software is archived in Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.398871

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.398871 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.398871 is the archive.

[arfon]

@vchuravy many thanks for your rapid review here ✨

@mpastell - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00204 ⚡️ 🚀 💥