[PRE REVIEW]: simK: Synthetic Data on Kidney Transplantation

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @balima78 (Bruno A Lima)
Repository: https://github.com/txopen/simK
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.2.1
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/81aea7b434cf618344fef7e46826a871"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/81aea7b434cf618344fef7e46826a871/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/81aea7b434cf618344fef7e46826a871/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/81aea7b434cf618344fef7e46826a871)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @balima78. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@balima78 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (563.5 files/s, 140382.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                       4           2099           1928           7019
HTML                            37           1103            117           3609
TeX                              2             69              9            521
R                               12            148            434            519
YAML                             7             27             10            165
Markdown                         4             67              0            147
XML                              1              0              0            129
Rmd                              4             87            147             66
SVG                              1              0              1             11
CSS                              1              0              0              1
JSON                             1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            74           3600           2646          12188
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1368

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.04807 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trim.2022.101578 is OK
- 10.32932/pjnh.2020.07.070 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000082 is OK
- 10.1093/jamia/ocx079 is OK
- 10.1186/s12911-019-0793-0 is OK
- 10.1016/j.humimm.2013.06.025 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

simstudy: Illuminating research methods through data generation
Submitting author: @assignUser
Handling editor: @mikldk (Retired)
Reviewers: @gagolews, @brunaw
Similarity score: 0.8566

graphsim: An R package for simulating gene expression data from graph structures of biological pathways
Submitting author: @TomKellyGenetics
Handling editor: @majensen (Active)
Reviewers: @rcannood, @corybrunson
Similarity score: 0.8157

kep_solver: A Python package for kidney exchange programme exploration
Submitting author: @WPettersson
Handling editor: @jmschrei (Active)
Reviewers: @arianesasso, @igarizio
Similarity score: 0.8084

MCSD: A MATLAB Tool for Monte-Carlo Simulations of Diffusion in biological Tissues
Submitting author: @davidnsousa
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @nnadeau, @mwacaan
Similarity score: 0.8000

secuTrialR: Seamless interaction with clinical trial databases in R
Submitting author: @PatrickRWright
Handling editor: @csoneson (Active)
Reviewers: @pacoramon, @sachsmc
Similarity score: 0.7998

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@balima78 thanks for this submission to JOSS. I am the AEiC on this track and here to process initial steps. I am currently trying to determine if this work is in scope for JOSS. Could you please clarify what aspects, in terms of lines of code, from the above software report constitutes your original work/contribution? For this type of R-projects typically the core achievement is the R-code itself (here 519 lines), and the JavaScript/HTML code is automatically generated e.g. to enable a GUI/web tool environment. Can you confirm this please?

[balima78]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Yes, I confirm that my core achievement is the R-code itself.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@balima78 the editorial board have unfortunately concluded that this work is not in scope for JOSS. In particular the small size cause it to not conform to our substantial scholarly effort criteria.

We will now proceed to reject this submission.

Note the above conclusion does not mean the work is not useful or not of a high quality, it merely means that given its rather small size it is not in scope for JOSS.

We do hope you will consider JOSS for any future (re)submissions of a more substantial magnitude.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.