Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: Virtual Bumblebees

[whedon]

Submitting author: @howardjp (James P. Howard, II)
Repository: https://github.com/howardjp/bumblebees
Version: 1.1
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @pjotrp
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.574887

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2ee3e52e9cc4d7979ee28f4317c01fd"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2ee3e52e9cc4d7979ee28f4317c01fd/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2ee3e52e9cc4d7979ee28f4317c01fd/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d2ee3e52e9cc4d7979ee28f4317c01fd)

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

• [x] 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

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (1.1)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (howardjp) made major contributions to the software?

Functionality

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

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] 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?
• [x] 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

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] 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. @pjotrp it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

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:

1. 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

[pjotrp]

@howardjp: I started review. Thank you for your contribution to JOSS. Two minor comments:

1. Please merge your development branch with master
2. Check github recognizes the LICENSE - in the repo header

When that is done I'll tick the final boxes.

[howardjp]

1. Check, now version 1.2.1
2. Wow, I just want to say, that was an entirely nontrivial operation

[pjotrp]

Your software is compliant ;). One last niggle, can you make a release of the software under version 1.2.1? Once that is done we can in principle assign a DOI.

[howardjp]

Oh, yep, I forgot to git push --tags. Done.

[pjotrp]

Thank you @howardjp. The release should match the 'paper' version.

@arfon I think we can go ahead and accept this submission.

[arfon]

@howardjp - 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.

[howardjp]

Awesome! http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.574887

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.574887 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.574887 is the archive.

[arfon]

Many thanks for your review @pjotrp ✨

@howardjp - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your paper DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00256 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

[howardjp]

Thank you @arfon and @pjotrp for seeing this through!