Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: iheatmapr: Interactive complex heatmaps in R

[whedon]

Submitting author: @AliciaSchep (Alicia Schep)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci/iheatmapr
Version: v0.3.2
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.841331

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ebcd154fd6df78155d1655ff677b823"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ebcd154fd6df78155d1655ff677b823/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ebcd154fd6df78155d1655ff677b823/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9ebcd154fd6df78155d1655ff677b823)

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

@rlbarter, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below (please make sure you're logged in to GitHub). The reviewer guidelines are available here: http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @karthik know.

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).

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

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 (v0.3.2)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@AliciaSchep) 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)?
• [x] 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. @rlbarter 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

[karthik]

I notified @rlbarter about the mix up.

The review thread from ropensci is here: https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/107

@arfon Could you please switch yourself to editor and proceed with accepting this submission?

[arfon]

@arfon Could you please switch yourself to editor and proceed with accepting this submission?

Wilco.

[arfon]

@whedon assign @arfon as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @arfon

[arfon]

@whedon assign @arfon as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @arfon

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.841331 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.841331 is the archive.

[arfon]

@AliciaSchep - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00359 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

[AliciaSchep]

Thanks @arfon and @karthik, and sorry for any confusion about the paper having gone through ropensci before, wasn't sure how this all worked!