Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: Philentropy: Information Theory and Distance Quantification with R

[whedon]

Submitting author: @HajkD (Hajk-Georg Drost)
Repository: https://github.com/HajkD/philentropy
Version: v0.2.0
Editor: @leeper
Reviewer: @kellieotto
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1286221

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cad5ffc246ce197b06ccad1af7d2932a"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cad5ffc246ce197b06ccad1af7d2932a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cad5ffc246ce197b06ccad1af7d2932a/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/cad5ffc246ce197b06ccad1af7d2932a)

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

@kellieotto, 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 @kellieotto

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 (v0.2.0)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@HajkD) 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. @kellieotto 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: <--

[kellieotto]

I've completed my first review. I noted issues with the license and performance claims in issues in the repository.

[HajkD]

Dear Kellie,

Thank you so so much for compiling a review so quickly.
It is very much appreciated.

I will address all your points in detail and will add the missing LICENSE file.

Many thanks and kind regards,
Hajk

[HajkD]

Dear all,

I incorporated all changes and addressed the two issues listed above.

Many thanks and kind regards,
Hajk

[leeper]

@kellieotto Can you take a look and see if there are any further issues to address?

[kellieotto]

@leeper Everything looks good now.

[leeper]

@HajkD Please issue a GitHub release for the current version of the software, and create a DOI for that release using, for example, figshare or Zenodo. Once you have the DOI, please leave it here as a comment. Once that's done, your paper will be accepted at JOSS!

@kellieotto Thanks so much for your very quick review!

[HajkD]

Dear @leeper,

Thank you so much for organizing everything.

Here is the doi I generated:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1286221

@kellieotto Thank you very very much for your great and super fast review.

This was a great experience and I will definitely recommend JOSS!

Kind regards,
Hajk

[kellieotto]

You're welcome! Always happy to review for JOSS.

[leeper]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1286221 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1286221 is the archive.

[leeper]

@arfon over to you

[arfon]

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

@HajkD - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00765 ⚡️ 🚀 💥

[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.00765/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00765)

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=

[HajkD]

Dear all,

Thank you so so much for your great work and for the super fast editorial/review process.

This is my first JOSS paper and I will definitely consider submitting future tools to JOSS as well. In addition, I will also highly recommend it to my colleagues.

Kind regards,
Hajk