Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: DearScholar: A mobile application to conduct qualitative and quantitative diary research

[whedon]

Submitting author: @pmkruyen (Peter Kruyen)
Repository: https://github.com/pmkruyen/dearscholar.git
Version: v1.0.49
Editor: @cMadan
Reviewer: @gcdeshpande, @kinow
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4267938

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1896b88f26b987b9c7a07035751afd7b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1896b88f26b987b9c7a07035751afd7b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1896b88f26b987b9c7a07035751afd7b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1896b88f26b987b9c7a07035751afd7b)

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) by leaving comments 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

@gcdeshpande & @kinow, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @cMadan know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @gcdeshpande

Conflict of interest

• [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pmkruyen) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @kinow

Conflict of interest

• [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@pmkruyen) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• [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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• [x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @gcdeshpande, @kinow it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

: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

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/puar.12388 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030 is OK
- 10.5465/amj.2011.64869103 is OK
- 10.1108/13522750510592427 is OK
- 10.1080/10967494.2016.1169066 is OK
- 10.1037/13619-016 is OK
- 10.1177/104973200129118543 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02047.x is OK
- 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349 is OK
- 10.1027/1866-5888/a000009 is OK
- 10.1080/1359432X.2013.752247 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan thanks for starting the review; and @gcdeshpande and @kinow, thanks again for reviewing. I am looking forward to your feedback.

The repro contains two versions as you will see (two branches). It would be great if you could review the developer branch containing the last updates.

Also, I see that I filled out that we are at version 1.48 above -oops- that should be 1.048 (stable release) or 1.0.49 (developer release). Hope that does not cause any troubles.

[kinow]

Looking at this item now, under documentation

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?

https://github.com/pmkruyen/dearscholar/issues/18

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen, thanks for pointing out the version number issue. I'll update it to 1.048 for now, but usually the accepted version of the software is a later version number than the submitted one (e.g., changes in response to the reviewers' comments), so I will update it again when we're closer to acceptance.

[cMadan]

@whedon set 1.048 as version

[whedon]

OK. 1.048 is the version.

[kinow]

Hi @cMadan , thanks for assigning me as reviewer here. I will take up your offer, when you said I could ask if I had questions. I hope these are not too silly.

Q1/ The check list and the linked documentation are great! I can see the performance check box can be left unchecked if there are no claims of performance. What if the project doesn't have installation instructions, or tests? I asked the project maintainer to add those and he is working on that now. But what if the author decides those are not important? Then I just leave the checkbox unchecked and say that I have finished my review?

Q2/ When I was reviewing the readme.md file of the project, I found some markdown syntax issues. Normally I use GitHub UI to quickly send a PR whenever if find these in other projects. But since I am a reviewer of the project's paper, I wasn't sure if that would be alright? Would that be OK?

Q3/ After the review is done, should I avoid contributing to projects of papers I reviewed?

Thanks!
Bruno

[cMadan]

Hi @kinow,

Q1. For publication at JOSS, we would require install instructions and some form of testing. (E.g., automated tests are not required, but some minimal example of input/output would be.) As is the case here, then we would then wait for the author to work on those aspects of the project, and the review is 'on-going' until the project is suitable for publication. So, it's not just a 'one-pass and done' situation, but more of periodic back-and-forth as the authors attempt to address your comments.

Q2. Go ahead, that's perfectly fine! (And probably would help speed the process along.)

Q3. It's generally viewed that contributions you make as a reviewer do not count towards co-authorship on the project. But, should you continue to contribute to the project after the JOSS review process, then it may make sense for you to be a co-author on subsequent publications that come after the JOSS paper, and would involve a discussion with the project's authors accordingly.

I hope that helps clarify things!

[kinow]

Thanks a lot @cMadan !

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @gcdeshpande and @kinow,

To give a short update:

• Because the App Store approved version 1.0.48 of the app, I merged the developer and master branch in the GitHup repro to keep things manageable. The GitHub version is 1.0.49. Both versions are similar except that version 1.0.49 offers researchers the possibility to change the numbers of survey modules while version 1.0.48 does not offer this possibility. I am planning to upload version 1.0.49 soon to the stores because of requirements for my current research projects, taking your feedback into account.

• Over the weekend, I wrote down installation instructions (see 'Installation' section, in Readme.md. Hope these instructions are clear and work :)[also see issue 18 in the project repro].

• Will search for ways to include some (automatic) testing for the server and the app.

Best,
Peter

[cMadan]

@gcdeshpande, just thought I'd check in, how are things going?

[kinow]

Followed new build instructions written by @pmkruyen , successfully built and executed DearScholar locally. Other users should be able to reproduce it, given they follow the instructions and there are no packages removed from NPM/DockerHub. :+1: thanks @pmkruyen !

[kinow]

We now have documentation on how to build DearScholar, scripts in-place that help others to build in their own environments, and also simple unit tests and some functional tests in BrowserStack (@pmkruyen is writing even more tests now :tada: ).

I am done with the review, the DearScholar app passes all the items in the checklist. I've left performance unchecked as there are no claims about it in the paper, but I will say I didn't notice any performance issues using it locally :+1:

@cMadan let me know if I have any other steps in the review process that I need to complete. Otherwise, I think I have finished reviewing my first JOSS paper? :grin:

And thanks Peter for the help and patience with the review. And also for the fun and learning experience while working on the issues together.

Cheers
Bruno

[cMadan]

@kinow, that sounds great, yes, you're all done here. Thank you for the thorough review!

@pmkruyen, I have sent an email to @gcdeshpande to remind him about this review.

[kinow]

Thanks @cMadan !

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan,

I really appreciated @kinow's constructive and pleasant input, questions, and help (he even constructed a docker file for the project to automate the installation). He helped me to push the project to another level! I learned a lot from him and hope we stay in touch and he stays connected to the project in some way. 👍

Peter

PS. And thanks for sending a reminder to @gcdeshpande, hope to hear from him soon.

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen @kinow, that's great that you've both enjoyed the process here, that's what we like to hear :).

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan, have you heard anything back from @gcdeshpande?

Best,
Peter

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan and @kinow,

FYI: the published version on the App Store + Google Play is now completely in sync with the GitHub version (1.0.49).

Cheers,
Peter

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen, unfortunately I still haven't heard anything from @gcdeshpande. I now emailed him again and at an additional email address.

[cMadan]

Fyi. I heard back from @gcdeshpande by email and he said he will do the review within the next 15 days.

[pmkruyen]

Hi @gcdeshpande,

Thank you for reviewing my paper & app. I just received a note from our IT department. My new Mac has arrived 😄, but I need to hand in my current working horse in return 😢 . Will wait till you finished your review. Can you let me know if you are able to start the review within the next 7 days or so as stated above by @cMadan?

Looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks,
Peter

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan, did you hear back from @gcdeshpande yet? Cheers, Peter

[gcdeshpande]

Hi @pmkruyen and @cMadan,
I am extremely sorry the delay in reviewing.
I just finished reading the article.
I found the work interesting. Exploring similar apps.. will provide feedback on or before Thursday.

[pmkruyen]

Thanks for starting the review @gcdeshpande. No worries :)

[gcdeshpande]

@cMadan, I am unable to update the checklist. I think the invitation expired. I request you to resend it.

[cMadan]

@gcdeshpande, thanks for following up with this review, I will re-send the invitation now.

[cMadan]

@whedon re-invite @gcdeshpande as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@gcdeshpande please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

[pmkruyen]

Hi @gcdeshpande, thanks for starting the review. Can you give an indication when you are able to perform the remaining checks? When you need help with installing the app or experience any issues, please let me know. Best, Peter

[cMadan]

I will send an email to @gcdeshpande to follow up.

[cMadan]

I heard back from @gcdeshpande and he is currently occupied with some personal circumstances (I feel like it's not my place to elaborate further), but will return to the review after the 19th and aims to complete it by the 25th.

[pmkruyen]

Thanks for the update @cMadan. Thanks @gcdeshpande for continuing your review in these times, wish you all the best. Peter

[gcdeshpande]

Hi @pmkruyen, I have started the review. I will try to finish as early as possible. I have installed the app on my mobile phone. Need credentials. Kindly share the credentials.

[pmkruyen]

Hi @gcdeshpande, super! Can you drop me an email at p.m.[email protected]? I will send back to you the credentials. Thanks!

[pmkruyen]

Hi @gcdeshpande, did you succeed with the credentials? Cheers, Peter

[gcdeshpande]

@pmkruyen Yes.. It works.

[gcdeshpande]

@pmkruyen is the user interface of an application available in English? Any plans of making the app multi-lingual.

[pmkruyen]

Hi @gcdeshpande, thanks for continuing the review.

At the moment, the only active survey is in Dutch (hence, the credentials I gave you 'direct' you to the Dutch survey). In principle, however, the app is multilingual. If you install the app on your own machine (e.g., laptop), the app is populated with an English sample survey (see the installation instructions on the Wiki) and specifically the settings and options page.

Best,
Peter

PS. The general 'menu' buttons are only available in Dutch at the moment, I re-realize now. This is something to consider in the next update.

[gcdeshpande]

@pmkruyen ok... I got some error while installing on Ubuntu 20..... But it worked on Ubuntu 16.... I am checking it.. will complete the review in a couple of days.

[pmkruyen]

B2W, good to know that Ubuntu does not work, is there some issue with the Docker? Will check this too. Peter

[gcdeshpande]

On Unbuntu 20 when I run the below command

sudo docker run -ti --rm --name dearscholar -p "80:80" -p "3306:3306" dearscholar:dev

I get the error

docker: Error response from daemon: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint dearscholar (f317ffc10697b7d5089ef2251b212a5a7663435dd92cb6a9b9f034a05d2d8495): Error starting userland proxy: listen tcp 0.0.0.0:3306: bind: address already in use.

[gcdeshpande]

But it works on lower versions of Ubuntu

[gcdeshpande]

Hi @cMadan and @pmkruyen,

I have completed the review. I am happy to let you know that the paper satisfies the checklist.

[cMadan]

@gcdeshpande, thank you for your thorough review, it is much appreciated!

@pmkruyen, I need to do some final checks, but we're almost done! (So the review is with me now.)

[cMadan]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Dear all,

@gcdeshpande, thank you for all your help and your review! I hope everything is well.

@cMadan, thank you for doing the final checks now. Let me know if you need any assistance from me.

Best,
Peter

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen, it looks like your bib needs fixing. At the very least, all authors need to be separated by "and", not commas. There are some other formatting issues too, so please proof the references carefully.

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan, thanks for the hint. I forgot this issue and to ask about it. I solved the 'and' problem; also I corrected the capital letter issue (e.g. EJOP). Is there any other issue with the bib file?

[pmkruyen]

Sorry, forgot to ask about this: Do you prefer/use "Jonge, de J.", Jonge, De J.", or "De Jonge, J." ?

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[cMadan]

"de Jonge, J." would be correct . You can use { and } around the last name to group together the two words.

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

@cMadan, thanks! Yes, that's the APA style. Let me know if there are any other issues. Peter

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen, the references are good now. I did notice that (1) the capitalisation of iPhone and iPad are inconsistent, and (2) the footnotes are not formatted in the PDF. See here (https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html) for syntax to try. Please do also read over the text carefully in case there's anything else I missed.

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan, thanks for the manual. It was unclear to me how to achieve the footnotes correctly. At the initial submission, I used a work around. I corrected this now. Also, I corrected three typos, swapped two paragraphs, and rephrased several sentences. Hope the text is ok now. Best, Peter

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen, everything looks good to me now!

To move forward with accepting your submission, there are a few last things to take care of:

• [ ] Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
• [ ] Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo
• [ ] Check the Zenodo deposit has the correct metadata, this includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it); you may also add the authors' ORCID.
• [ ] List the Zenodo DOI of the archived version here.

You may find this helpful: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @cMadan,

Thanks for the checks.

• I made a tagged release: v1.0.49 https://github.com/pmkruyen/dearscholar/releases/tag/v1.0.49
• I archieved the reviewed software in Zenodo
• I checked the metadata (added @kinow under 'other' contributors; hope this is okay with him: https://zenodo.org/record/4267938#.X6vacJNKhb8
• the Zenodo DOI is: 10.5281/zenodo.426793

And then, I decided to change the formatting of the URL addresses in the bib file, because I became unsure about the proper formating here. Better to have asked this first to you :( Could you have a last look at the way I styled/formatted the urls in the paper please?

Also, because of these small changes, do I need to create a new tagged release? I could not re-create the current release (this is a beginner's fault).

Thanks,
Peter

[kinow]

All good for me, thanks @pmkruyen !

[cMadan]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[cMadan]

@pmkruyen, this url formatting looks good. The previous was fine too, but this does look better.

[cMadan]

@whedon set v1.0.49 as version

[whedon]

OK. v1.0.49 is the version.

[cMadan]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.426793 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.426793 is the archive.

[cMadan]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1111/puar.12388 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030 is OK
- 10.5465/amj.2011.64869103 is OK
- 10.1108/13522750510592427 is OK
- 10.1080/10967494.2016.1169066 is OK
- 10.1037/13619-016 is OK
- 10.1177/104973200129118543 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02047.x is OK
- 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349 is OK
- 10.1027/1866-5888/a000009 is OK
- 10.1080/1359432X.2013.752247 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1910

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1910, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[kthyng]

@cMadan Why is the performance checkbox unchecked for both reviewers?

[kthyng]

Looks like the zenodo doi wasn't copied correctly before, so I'll fix it

[kthyng]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4267938 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4267938 is the archive.

[kthyng]

@pmkruyen Is it convention to have "prof dr" and "dr" not capitalized?

[kthyng]

Note to myself that the version is up to date, Zenodo archive looks good, and paper is good other than the question above. Waiting to hear back about the capitalization and the unchecked boxes.

[kinow]

@cMadan Why is the performance checkbox unchecked for both reviewers?

Ops, sorry @kthyng ! Checked it now. There are no claims about performance in the paper. Also, I tested it locally (and also briefly against the server with automated tests) and found no performance issues :+1:

[pmkruyen]

Hi @kthyng,

Is it convention to have "prof dr" and "dr" not capitalized?

Good point. In the Netherlands, this is the convention I now see that in the English language, it is always Prof. Dr. I changed the text accordingly.

the unchecked boxes
As @kinow noted I have no specific performance claims.

Best,
Peter

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[pmkruyen]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[kthyng]

Good point. In the Netherlands, this is the convention I now see that in the English language, it is always Prof. Dr. I changed the text accordingly.

@pmkruyen At least in the U.S. we don't use "Dr Prof", just "Dr". But, you can specify however is appropriate for you, I think.

Thanks @kinow!

@gcdeshpande Can you verify that you are satisfied with this JOSS submission and check off the performance box in your review?

[cMadan]

@kthyng, I figured it's better to not 'enforce' US norms on titles, so had left that as-is. As for the performance checkbox, I was fine with it unchecked as no performance claims were made, though functionality was obviously assessed. @gcdeshpande signed off in comment https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2506#issuecomment-720124281. (Part of why I'm responding like this is that @gcdeshpande doesn't always check Github regularly and I often had to follow up via email to prompt responses here.)

[danielskatz]

👋 @gcdeshpande - If there are no performance claims, the box should then be checked, as it says "If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)"

[gcdeshpande]

@danielskatz @kthyng @cMadan,
I just checked performance checkbox... I am satisfied with this JOSS submission.

[cMadan]

@gcdeshpande, great, thanks for following up with this last step!

[kthyng]

Ok looks good to go!

[kthyng]

@kthyng, I figured it's better to not 'enforce' US norms on titles, so had left that as-is. As for the performance checkbox, I was fine with it unchecked as no performance claims were made, though functionality was obviously assessed. @gcdeshpande signed off in comment #2506 (comment). (Part of why I'm responding like this is that @gcdeshpande doesn't always check Github regularly and I often had to follow up via email to prompt responses here.)

I agree either way is fine now that I know that was following some convention anyway. I'll assume the author doesn't care too much either way and finish this up now!

[kthyng]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1925
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02506
3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

   Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kthyng]

Congrats on your new publication @pmkruyen! Thanks to editor @cMadan and reviewers @gcdeshpande and @kinow for your time and expertise!! 🎉 🎉

[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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02506/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02506)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02506">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02506/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02506/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02506

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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[pmkruyen]

Thanks @cMadan, @kinow, @gcdeshpande, and @kthyng for your time, help and feedback. This review process was a super transparent and nice experience, I learned a lot too (though I missed some nights of sleep solving @kinow's issues 😂👍) . Hope now that other researchers will start using DearScholar in their own projects 😁. All the best! Peter