[PRE REVIEW]: RCTab: An Azure Subscription Management System

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @Iain-S (Iain Stenson)
Repository: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/rctab
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v1
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e4a113bb65f34e25c18f68a1038bbeab"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e4a113bb65f34e25c18f68a1038bbeab/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e4a113bb65f34e25c18f68a1038bbeab/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e4a113bb65f34e25c18f68a1038bbeab)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @Iain-S. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@Iain-S if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.01 s (1176.2 files/s, 51018.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         4             58              0            155
reStructuredText                 4             49             68            130
YAML                             3              8             18             48
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
Python                           1             18             25             26
TOML                             1              5              0             20
make                             1              4              7              9
CSS                              1              2              2              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            16            152            121            421
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1295

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf. Author (Oscar Giles) is missing affiliation.

[danielskatz]

👋 @Iain-S - note that your paper does not compile. Please follow the example paper and note that you can click on the error above to find out more about it. Please feel free to make changes to your .md file, then use the command @editorialbot generate pdf to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

Also, it's very unusual not to have references. Can you say anything about this?

I'm also unsure that this is research software as defined by JOSS, but once the paper is ready, I'll ask other editors to weigh in.

Finally, where is the code that JOSS would review?

[Iain-S]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

hotsub: A batch job engine for cloud services with ETL framework
Submitting author: @otiai10
Handling editor: @brainstorm (Retired)
Reviewers: @reisingerf
Similarity score: 0.7890

FRIEDA: Flexible Robust Intelligent Elastic Data Management Framework
Submitting author: @dghoshal-lbl
Handling editor: @acabunoc (Retired)
Reviewers: @krother
Similarity score: 0.7861

secuTrialR: Seamless interaction with clinical trial databases in R
Submitting author: @PatrickRWright
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @pacoramon, @sachsmc
Similarity score: 0.7860

Translational Informatics Management System (TIMS): Towards OMICS based clinical data management for long term curation of clinical studies
Submitting author: @bii-absd
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @rabdill, @andreysmelter
Similarity score: 0.7759

Castellum: A participant management tool for scientific studies
Submitting author: @jagnobli
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @samhforbes, @htwangtw
Similarity score: 0.7742

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[Iain-S]

Hi @danielskatz, I think it has compiled OK now.

Where is the code that JOSS would review?

The codebase comprises four repositories, in addition to the one containing the paper, which has documentation:

• The web app: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/rctab-api
• The admin CLI: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/rctab-cli
• The function apps: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/rctab-functions
• Automated deployment: https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/rctab-infrastructure

I wouldn't expect a reviewer to be able to look at the whole codebase in depth but can point out critical or representative sections if it would be helpful.

I'm also unsure that this is research software as defined by JOSS, but once the paper is ready, I'll ask other editors to weigh in.

We thought it might fall under a liberal interpretation of the "supports the functioning of research instruments or the execution of research experiments" part of the definition as I presume FRIEDA and hotsub (found by the editorial bot, above) do.

Also, it's very unusual not to have references. Can you say anything about this?

There was very little academic literature on the adoption of cloud computing for research that we could find to draw on. We certainly did use other sources for the paper and, where possible, I have included them as inline links. I notice that the hotsub paper also references websites such as DockerHub and Azure documentation. If you think it would be appropriate to add similar references, I'm more than happy to.

[danielskatz]

Thanks for your response. I'll now start a scope review re the "is this research software" question.

[danielskatz]

@arfon - can you check on the LOC in these 4 repositories to help with the scope query?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[Iain-S]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

hotsub: A batch job engine for cloud services with ETL framework
Submitting author: @otiai10
Handling editor: @brainstorm (Retired)
Reviewers: @reisingerf
Similarity score: 0.7890

FRIEDA: Flexible Robust Intelligent Elastic Data Management Framework
Submitting author: @dghoshal-lbl
Handling editor: @acabunoc (Retired)
Reviewers: @krother
Similarity score: 0.7861

secuTrialR: Seamless interaction with clinical trial databases in R
Submitting author: @PatrickRWright
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @pacoramon, @sachsmc
Similarity score: 0.7860

Translational Informatics Management System (TIMS): Towards OMICS based clinical data management for long term curation of clinical studies
Submitting author: @bii-absd
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @rabdill, @andreysmelter
Similarity score: 0.7759

Castellum: A participant management tool for scientific studies
Submitting author: @jagnobli
Handling editor: @oliviaguest (Active)
Reviewers: @samhforbes, @htwangtw
Similarity score: 0.7742

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[danielskatz]

@Iain-S - I'm sorry to say that after some discussion amongst the JOSS editors, we have decided that this submission is not research software as defined by JOSS. (Note that this definition has been interpreted somewhat more strictly over time, so it's possible that some published work from years ago would not be considered in-scope today.) This does not mean that it is not software that is useful in research, but just that JOSS does not consider it in scope for review as research software. Please see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#other-venues-for-reviewing-and-publishing-software-packages for other suggestions for how you might receive credit for your work.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.