Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: skijumpdesign: A Ski Jump Design Tool for Specified Equivalent Fall Height

[whedon]

Submitting author: @moorepants (Jason K. Moore)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/moorepants/skijumpdesign
Version: v1.2.0
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewer: @trallard
Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.6981647.v1

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/faf17c3187af7ceba98259c101511aa1"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/faf17c3187af7ceba98259c101511aa1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/faf17c3187af7ceba98259c101511aa1/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/faf17c3187af7ceba98259c101511aa1)

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

@trallard, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

Review checklist for @trallard

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 (v1.2.0)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@moorepants) 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. @trallard 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: <--

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@trallard thanks again for being a reviewer for this submission. How are you getting on? Let me know if I can help.

[trallard]

Hi! I am working on this at the moment. I was planning to complete it over the weekend

[moorepants]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[moorepants]

Hi, I just noticed that the release of plotly 3 has backwards incompatible changes which have broken this program, see: https://gitlab.com/moorepants/skijumpdesign/issues/54

I won't have time to address this till the weekend, but likely if Plotly < 3 is install things should work.

FYI

[moorepants]

@monthubbard fyi, the review is now happening here.

[moorepants]

FYI, the package should now be compatible with Plotly 2 and 3. You'll need to install version 1.2.1 for things to work.

[trallard]

Awesome will speed this review then

[trallard]

Sorry for taking this long . but I have finally been spending some time doing the review. @moorepants this is a great package, and the example EFH jump design is an awesome introductory walkthrough 👌🏼

I can confirm that the installation, API, app and tests work as expected.

I am opening a couple of issues on the repo directly, but they should be rather straightforward to tackle.

[moorepants]

All of the issues posted to the repo have been addressed in the master branch.

[moorepants]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[trallard]

I can confirm that the review was completed and the very minimal improvements have also been completed by the authors

[moorepants]

@trallard thank you for the thorough review and your volunteered time!

[moorepants]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman What is the status now? Will there be more reviewers? Or is this ready for an editorial decision?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Great, thanks @trallard for your review work! :rocket:

For the record the issues you raised which were addressed are here:
https://gitlab.com/moorepants/skijumpdesign/issues/58
https://gitlab.com/moorepants/skijumpdesign/issues/57
https://gitlab.com/moorepants/skijumpdesign/issues/56

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@moorepants I'm willing to recommend that this paper is accepted. I've a minor comment on the paper, for the _Swedberg et al._ reference, would you be able to add a link to the article, perhaps it is this one: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA524748.
Once you have done that please can you regenerate the paper here, package the software in a repository and post the DOI here? Thanks :skier:

[moorepants]

Will do.

[moorepants]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[moorepants]

I've archived the source tar ball here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6981647.v1

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Great. @arfon I recommend we accept this submission :rocket: :robot: :tada:

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.6084/m9.figshare.6981647.v1 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.6084/m9.figshare.6981647.v1 is the archive.

[arfon]

@trallard - many thanks for your review here and to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for editing this paper ✨

@moorepants - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00818 :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 snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00818/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00818)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00818">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00818/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

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=

[moorepants]

Thank you all! We are very happy to have this published.