Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: rsimsum: Summarise results from Monte Carlo simulation studies

[whedon]

Submitting author: @ellessenne (Alessandro Gasparini)
Repository: https://github.com/ellessenne/rsimsum/
Version: 0.3.1
Editor: @leeper
Reviewer: @lebebr01
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1293527

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b0df561e6cf7f1ef2b839645f612a4a"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b0df561e6cf7f1ef2b839645f612a4a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b0df561e6cf7f1ef2b839645f612a4a/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/4b0df561e6cf7f1ef2b839645f612a4a)

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 instructions & questions

@lebebr01, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @leeper know.

Review checklist for @lebebr01

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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 (0.3.1)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@ellessenne) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

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. @lebebr01 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 a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all 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

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

[leeper]

@lebebr01 Just a quick reminder about this review.

[leeper]

@lebebr01 Looks like you've made progress on the checklist. Can I ask you to open issues on the target repository for any unchecked items you'd like to see addressed? Thanks!

[lebebr01]

@leeper I have completed my review and have posted a few issues for @ellessenne to consider. Many of the issues are related to clarification of arguments, output, or documentation of the functions. I'm happy to look over the package again after @ellessenne has a chance to consider the issues.

[leeper]

@lebebr01 Great. Thanks for the review!

[ellessenne]

Thanks a lot @lebebr01 (and @leeper) - I will go through the issues as quickly as possible!

[ellessenne]

Hello @lebebr01 and @leeper,
I just finished making some changes following @lebebr01 comments (for which I am very grateful - thank you very much!). Do you think there are other things I could improve on?

[leeper]

Great. @lebebr01, can you take another look and see if there are remaining issues to be addressed?

[lebebr01]

@leeper I took a look again and LGTM.

@ellessenne thank you for the comments and further clarification of the documentation.

[leeper]

Thank you, @lebebr01!

@ellessenne Please create a release of the package and issue a DOI for it using, for example, figshare or zenodo, and let me know the DOI once you have it.

[ellessenne]

Thank you @lebebr01 for the review!

@leeper I just archived the current version of rsimsum using Zenodo and the corresponding DOI is: 10.5281/zenodo.1293527!

[leeper]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1293527 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1293527 is the archive.

[leeper]

@arfon Over to you.

[arfon]

@lebebr01 - many thanks for your review and to @leeper for editing this submission ✨

@ellessenne - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00739 :zap: :rocket: :boom:

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippet:

[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00739/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00739)

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=