updating language about joss and members #24
Conversation
choldgraf
force-pushed
the
website_update
branch
from
52c6aef to
c2cfc3e
Compare
|
@choldgraf this is so awesome!! thank you so much for submitting this pr!! i'll merge it unless you'd like me to wait ?! or you can merge it! |
|
happy w/ whatever! My only question is whether my characterization of JOSS is accurate - I want to make sure they're OK with how we describe them...maybe we should get a JOSS person to give the OK? |
|
ahhh sure @leouieda can you please have a look at this PR and tell us if it captures JOSS properly? |
| We encourage our reviewers to provide more hands-on assistance and | ||
| give more in-depth feedback than is typically required in JOSS. The goal | ||
| of pyOpenSci is to ensure that all of its packages meet a minimum level | ||
| of best practices and standards, and our review processes often take longer |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@choldgraf the one big difference is pyopensci accepts API wrappers. JOSS does not. so pyopensci accepts MORE packages than JOSS does .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cool - feel free to either make edits directly, or I can make edits when I'm back at home (out of the office hanging out w/ family today)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wonderful. ok i'll make a few edits probably after the meeting. if leo or luiz or lindsay are there, they can help review the language!!! if not i can bug @arfon who might also be willing to look at this PR and ensure we are describing JOSS in the way he'd like us to!!
_pages/home.md
Outdated
| to improving the visibility and quality of scientific software. They do | ||
| so by providing a lightweight review and publishing process so that authors | ||
| of packages can publish their packages with a DOI and citable artifact. | ||
| They intentionally try to avoid lengthy review and feedback cycles |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure this is quite right. I'd rather see this phrased something like:
"JOSS reviews are limited in scope and the submission criteria less stringent than those of pyOpenSci."
Co-Authored-By: Arfon Smith <arfon@users.noreply.github.com>
|
ah this is all super helpful @arfon , thanks very much! I wasn't sure what terminology etc to use in some cases so I appreciate it |
|
i second that !! thank you so much @arfon !! |
Co-Authored-By: Arfon Smith <arfon@users.noreply.github.com>
|
OK, accepted the suggestions and updated the language per @arfon's comments. What do folks think now? |
|
LGTM |
|
@choldgraf looks good to me too!!! :) i added a small statement about pyopensci accepting API-wrappers. loving @arfon STAMP of approval so stealing it :) let's merge!! |
|
Agreed - looks good! |
|
ok merging!! :) |
|
|
||
| The [Journal of Open Source Software](https://joss.theoj.org/) is a community dedicated | ||
| to improving the visibility and quality of scientific software. They do | ||
| so by providing a lightweight review and publishing process so that authors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"lightweight" really minimizes the JOSS review process. I'd hope that JOSS wants reviews to be rigorous so that the journal has a decent reputation. It would be more fair for pyopensci to simply state the differences in the review process and let the reader decide whether one happens to be lightweight or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"lightweight" really minimizes the JOSS review process. I'd hope that JOSS wants reviews to be rigorous so that the journal has a decent reputation. It would be more fair for pyopensci to simply state the differences in the review process and let the reader decide whether one happens to be lightweight or not.
Yeah, that's a fair point. I guess I was trying to say lighter weight than pyOpenSci but I see what you mean @moorepants about potentially framing the JOSS review process in a negative light using language like this.
I'd hope that JOSS wants reviews to be rigorous so that the journal has a decent reputation.
💯absolutely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for noticing this - I agree we definitely don't want to convey the idea that JOSS is a less-than-rigorous review process. Could somebody suggest some better wording that conveys the ideas we want?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would remove "lightweight" as a start.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#27 there's a start - feel free to suggest edits and I'm happy to iterate there
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks guys!! we want everyone to be happy with how we represent our partnership on the website. all feedback is very much appreciated!!!
Per some recent conversations on twitter and in the forum, this makes a few small updates: