[REVIEW]: proteoDA: a package for quantitative proteomics #5184

editorialbot · 2023-02-21T17:39:54Z

Submitting author: @ByrumLab (Stephanie D. Byrum)
Repository: https://github.com/ByrumLab/proteoDA
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @jmschrei
Reviewers: @shahmoradi, @MohmedSoudy
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7962306

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9cc2593f89f34825b9b3b331d8156a86"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9cc2593f89f34825b9b3b331d8156a86/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9cc2593f89f34825b9b3b331d8156a86/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9cc2593f89f34825b9b3b331d8156a86)

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

@shahmoradi & @MohmedSoudy, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @jmschrei 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @shahmoradi

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2023-02-21T17:39:56Z

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-02-21T17:39:58Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/acsomega.0c02564 is OK
- 10.1021/pr401264n is OK
- 10.12688/f1000research.27893.1 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx094 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkv007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-02-21T17:39:58Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.21 s (468.2 files/s, 171424.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      21           2278           7436           8713
R                               45           1394           2229           4807
Markdown                         7            553              0           3205
CSS                             15            120            176           2551
HTML                             1             35              2            855
Rmd                              4            173            228            252
TeX                              1             13              0             72
YAML                             2              1              4             53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            96           4567          10075          20508
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2023-02-21T17:39:59Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 525

editorialbot · 2023-02-21T17:41:22Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

jmschrei · 2023-02-21T17:42:53Z

Howdy @shahmoradi and @MohmedSoudy!

Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.

The process for conducting a review is outlined above. Please run the command shown above to have @editorialbot generate your checklist, which will give a step-by-step process for conducting your review. Please check the boxes during your review to keep track, as well as make comments in this thread or open issues in the repository itself to point out issues you encounter. Keep in mind that our aim is to improve the submission to the point where it is of high enough quality to be accepted, rather than to provide a yes/no decision, and so having a conversation with the authors is encouraged rather than providing a single review post at the end of the process.

Here are the review guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html
And here is a checklist, similar to above: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_checklist.html

Please let me know if you encounter any issues or need any help during the review process, and thanks for contributing your time to JOSS and the open source community!

MohmedSoudy · 2023-02-25T14:08:40Z

Review checklist for @MohmedSoudy

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the proteoDA?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author ByrumLab made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participant's research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

MohmedSoudy · 2023-02-26T11:28:12Z

Hi @ByrumLab, Thank you for that great software package. The paper is well-written and the package is well-documented, however, I have some comments that may increase the package's feasibility and usability

State of the field: I believe that this point should be highlighted in the paper to show the significance of the package and the contribution performed by the authors.
write_qc_report function: The names of the samples in the heat map should fit in the graph, and the legend position may be at the right and should be bigger to be more readable
write_limma_plots function: The user should select the p-value adjustment method on the plot and re-plot, and you can plot the box plot for each protein with the point plot for better visualization of the group mean/median and the outliers

ByrumLab · 2023-03-13T13:03:25Z

HI @MohmedSoudy, Thank you for taking time to review our package.

We have updated the paper.md to include a State of the field section.
write_qc_report has been updated for readability.
write_limma_plots has been updated with a selector to chose the plot type instead of including each as a separate tab. We added a mean line to the point plot to easily see the differences between the groups. The box plot was harder to visualize, especially for projects with only three replicates.

We appreciate your time and helpful suggestions.

jmschrei · 2023-03-13T16:32:46Z

@shahmoradi, do you think you'll have a chance to look at this submission soon?

shahmoradi · 2023-03-15T07:48:50Z

Apologies for my delayed response. I can respond as soon as I am back from an ongoing conference by this weekend if that is not too late.

MohmedSoudy · 2023-03-22T11:30:39Z

Review checklist for @MohmedSoudy

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the proteoDA?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author ByrumLab made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participant's research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

MohmedSoudy · 2023-03-22T11:32:25Z

Hi @ByrumLab Thank you for addressing my comments. For me, the paper and the package now are ready and I think it's acceptable for publication.

shahmoradi · 2023-03-23T17:48:53Z

Review checklist for @shahmoradi

Conflict of interest

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

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/ByrumLab/proteoDA?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ByrumLab) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
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

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
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

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
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?

shahmoradi · 2023-03-23T17:50:58Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-03-23T17:52:33Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

shahmoradi · 2023-03-23T18:23:32Z

I have a few comments for which I'd appreciate the authors' response before I mark the remaining items in the checklist as approved.

I am not entirely familiar with testthat testing framework. Can you clarify how to run the tests? Normally, I'd expect a README file to exist in the appropriate folder that describes the steps to run the tests.
I cannot find any coverage reports in the repository. Unless I missed the report, a test suite without a code coverage report would be of minimal value. An example R package that could help generate coverage reports is covr.
~~I agree with @MohmedSoudy that the "State of the field" can be improved. I see the authors' response, but I cannot find the improvements in the most recent PDF compilation of the paper.~~ I can see the improvements in the most recent version now.
I cannot find "Community guidelines" in the repository. If one is already in the repository, please guide me to its location. See the checklist above for more information on "Community guidelines".

ByrumLab · 2023-03-30T17:27:55Z

Thank you @shahmoradi, we appreciate the review! We've made some changes to the package in response to your review:

The testthat framework is very commonly used across R packages, but it does have some differences to the way tests are distributed with other software packages and languages. In general, R packages do not have their tests bundled with them, so users cannot re-run testthat locally. See, for example, popular R packages like dplyr and ggplot2, which do not bundle their tests for distribution (that is, the tests are not in the inst/ directory). Instead, testthat runs package tests locally during development and during automated package checking with R CMD check. We have set up some GitHub actions to automatically run R CMD check against the latest R releases for the Mac, Windows, and Unix/Ubuntu operating systems, with the results displayed in a badge on the GitHub README. These tests are also run when packages are submitted to CRAN, which we plan to do upon acceptance.
We have used the R package you suggested to generate a code coverage report: it can be found by clicking on the codecov badge in our README. Currently, we have ~100% test coverage.
We have added community guidelines to our README, and have included a contributor code of conduct (CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md).

We hope these changes address your concerns.

ByrumLab · 2023-05-01T20:03:28Z

Hi @shahmoradi, I wanted to check if there are anymore concerns you would like us to address for this package?

Thanks!

jmschrei · 2023-05-03T16:22:38Z

Hi @shahmoradi, do you have any remaining concerns? If not, would you mind ticking the remaining boxes to let us know you're satisfied? Thanks!

jmschrei · 2023-05-21T17:35:18Z

@shahmoradi can you please provide an update?

shahmoradi · 2023-05-21T17:40:46Z

Thank you for your response @ByrumLab. I am fine with the latest updates and improvements and have approved all items in the checklist.

jmschrei · 2023-05-21T17:45:30Z

Great, thanks!

jmschrei · 2023-05-24T17:33:41Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2023-05-24T17:33:43Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2023-05-24T17:33:45Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/acsomega.0c02564 is OK
- 10.1021/pr401264n is OK
- 10.12688/f1000research.27893.1 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx094 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkv007 is OK
- 10.1002/bies.201800042 is OK
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3047588 is OK
- 10.1002/pmic.202100103 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkac1040 is OK
- 10.1093/nar/gkab1038 is OK
- 10.1101/2022.08.17.503867 is OK
- 10.1101/2022.06.07.494524 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2023-05-24T17:35:19Z

👋 @openjournals/bcm-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4262, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-05-24T20:04:39Z

I'm sorry @ByrumLab, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only eics are allowed to do.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-25T08:51:59Z

@ByrumLab @mikerobeson I checked the paper, the repository, and the archive link, and all seems in order. I did find a typo in the paper which you need to address:

Fix typo in reserchers

Correcting the typo as referenced [here](openjournals/joss-reviews#5184 (comment)). Changed "reserchers" to "researchers".

mikerobeson · 2023-05-25T17:52:43Z

Great catch @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman! I just committed the fix.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-27T07:45:41Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2023-05-27T07:46:54Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-30T10:07:41Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2023-05-30T10:07:42Z

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

editorialbot · 2023-05-30T10:10:13Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Thurman
  given-names: Timothy J.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9602-6226"
- family-names: Washam
  given-names: Charity L.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5761-9304"
- family-names: Alkam
  given-names: Duah
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-7694"
- family-names: Bird
  given-names: Jordan T.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5753-6058"
- family-names: Gies
  given-names: Allen
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2492-0429"
- family-names: Dhusia
  given-names: Kalyani
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8803-1295"
- family-names: II
  given-names: Michael S. Robeson
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7119-6301"
- family-names: Byrum
  given-names: Stephanie D.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-3610"
contact:
- family-names: Byrum
  given-names: Stephanie D.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-3610"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7962306
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Thurman
    given-names: Timothy J.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9602-6226"
  - family-names: Washam
    given-names: Charity L.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5761-9304"
  - family-names: Alkam
    given-names: Duah
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-7694"
  - family-names: Bird
    given-names: Jordan T.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5753-6058"
  - family-names: Gies
    given-names: Allen
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2492-0429"
  - family-names: Dhusia
    given-names: Kalyani
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8803-1295"
  - family-names: II
    given-names: Michael S. Robeson
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7119-6301"
  - family-names: Byrum
    given-names: Stephanie D.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1783-3610"
  date-published: 2023-05-30
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05184
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 85
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5184
  title: "proteoDA: a package for quantitative proteomics"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05184"
  volume: 8
title: "proteoDA: a package for quantitative proteomics"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2023-05-30T10:10:19Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2023-05-30T10:10:20Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2023-05-30T10:10:21Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05184 joss-papers#4274
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05184
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-30T11:03:02Z

@openjournals/dev this DOI is taking very long to resolve ☝️

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-30T15:29:38Z

@openjournals/dev this DOI is taking very long to resolve point_up

Resolves now

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2023-05-30T15:30:21Z

@ByrumLab congratulations on this publication in JOSS!

Thanks for editing @jmschrei !

And a special thanks to the reviewers: @shahmoradi, @MohmedSoudy

editorialbot · 2023-05-30T15:30:23Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

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.05184/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05184)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05184">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05184/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05184/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05184

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added CSS JavaScript R review Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Feb 21, 2023

editorialbot assigned jmschrei Feb 21, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 21, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: proteoDA: a package for quantitative proteomics #5122

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label May 24, 2023

mikerobeson added a commit to ByrumLab/proteoDA that referenced this issue May 25, 2023

fix typo

ee8dd5a

Correcting the typo as referenced [here](openjournals/joss-reviews#5184 (comment)). Changed "reserchers" to "researchers".

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels May 30, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed May 30, 2023

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: squallms: Squashing qualms with speedy quality assurance via lasso labeling for untargeted mass spectrometry data #6955

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Mar 25, 2025

[PRE REVIEW]: substrateminer: A Python package to investigate protein substrate repertoires #7912

Open

[REVIEW]: proteoDA: a package for quantitative proteomics #5184

[REVIEW]: proteoDA: a package for quantitative proteomics #5184

Comments

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023

jmschrei commented Feb 21, 2023

MohmedSoudy commented Feb 25, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @MohmedSoudy

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

MohmedSoudy commented Feb 26, 2023

ByrumLab commented Mar 13, 2023

jmschrei commented Mar 13, 2023

shahmoradi commented Mar 15, 2023

MohmedSoudy commented Mar 22, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @MohmedSoudy

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

MohmedSoudy commented Mar 22, 2023

shahmoradi commented Mar 23, 2023 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @shahmoradi

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

shahmoradi commented Mar 23, 2023

editorialbot commented Mar 23, 2023

shahmoradi commented Mar 23, 2023 • edited Loading

ByrumLab commented Mar 30, 2023

ByrumLab commented May 1, 2023

jmschrei commented May 3, 2023

jmschrei commented May 21, 2023

shahmoradi commented May 21, 2023

jmschrei commented May 21, 2023

jmschrei commented May 24, 2023

editorialbot commented May 24, 2023

editorialbot commented May 24, 2023

editorialbot commented May 24, 2023

editorialbot commented May 24, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 25, 2023 • edited Loading

mikerobeson commented May 25, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 27, 2023

editorialbot commented May 27, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented May 30, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 30, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 30, 2023

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented May 30, 2023

editorialbot commented Feb 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

MohmedSoudy commented Feb 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading

MohmedSoudy commented Mar 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

shahmoradi commented Mar 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

shahmoradi commented Mar 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented May 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading