[REVIEW]: LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure data #7601

editorialbot · 2024-12-18T14:20:33Z

Submitting author: @JZauner (Johannes Zauner)
Repository: https://github.com/tscnlab/LightLogR
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v0.5.3
Editor: @rwegener2
Reviewers: @cansavvy, @welch16
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14899662

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3a1057dccd315b7eb8683c1b969402e2)

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

@cansavvy & @welch16, 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 @rwegener2 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 @welch16

📝 Checklist for @cansavvy

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

editorialbot · 2024-12-18T14:20:37Z

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 · 2024-12-18T14:21:03Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (1592.1 files/s, 367204.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                              2              0              0          11432
R                               81            776           3413           5183
Markdown                        10            245              0            642
Rmd                              5            472            619            579
YAML                             4             22              9            184
TeX                              1             17              0            163
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           103           1532           4041          18183
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   121	Johannes Zauner
    71	Jzauner
    22	Manuel Spitschan
    22	steffenhartmeyer
     3	Steffen Hartmeyer
     2	JZauner

editorialbot · 2024-12-18T14:21:07Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1503

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-12-18T14:21:12Z

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot · 2024-12-18T14:21:17Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1111/jsr.14225 is OK
- 10.1177/14771535241248540 is OK
- 10.1101/2024.02.11.24302663 is OK
- 10.1177/14771535221103258 is OK
- 10.1101/2024.10.02.616112 is OK
- 10.1123/jmpb.2018-0063 is OK
- 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20557.1 is OK
- 10.1177/20552076221144858 is OK
- 10.20944/preprints202409.1285.v1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114909 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3771881/v1 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.13839724 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Tutorial: The whole game
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

rwegener2 · 2024-12-18T14:22:04Z

👋🏼 @JZauner @cansavvy, @welch16 this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#REVIEW_NUMBER so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if any of you require some more time. We can also use EditorialBot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@rwegener2) if you have any questions/concerns.

editorialbot · 2024-12-18T14:22:54Z

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

welch16 · 2024-12-18T18:47:40Z

Review checklist for @welch16

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/tscnlab/LightLogR?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@JZauner) 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?

cansavvy · 2024-12-18T19:14:07Z

Review checklist for @cansavvy

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/tscnlab/LightLogR?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@JZauner) 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?

cansavvy · 2024-12-20T14:32:10Z

@JZauner This is a very cool software! I really appreciate the thoroughness here. Enjoyed taking a look at the code base and paper! I don't work with light loggers so the application is not something I have experience with but can certainly understand the need and appreciate software that attempts to standardize data!

So only have the minorest of comments and questions here:

Your tutorial articles are great! Very nice. So often I see developers not put much care into those even though that's what really increases your usability.
There doesn't appear to be a contributing guide or information for contributors anywhere. I think GitHub has a template one you can borrow and adjust if you go to Settings > Community Standards and click the add button next to "CONTRIBUTING.md"
I ran through the steps in order on the README and many of the steps worked quite seamlessly! But it did tell me LLdata was not found and it was unclear in the code where that should be pulled from?
One of your sentences in the summary in the paper was a very long and a bit hard to keep track of so breaking that up into two might be helpful.

welch16 · 2024-12-29T21:44:36Z

@JZauner, I agree with @cansavvy that this software is great. In addition to @cansavvy comments, I would like to add:

Besides adding a contribution guide, adding a link to that file in the Import vignette could be useful. In the current version, it states that they can contact you to add it, but could be easier to do through GitHub issues or something.
I tried to run the vignettes after downloading the current GitHub version, and I ran into some minor issues with the relative location of files. Perhaps using the here R package could make the process of manually running the vignettes easier.
A minor suggestion would be to follow the tidyverse style guide for pipes (https://style.tidyverse.org/pipes.html).

Overall, I think it is a great package that would be very useful for the community. Good work!

rwegener2 · 2025-01-06T13:51:49Z

Thanks @cansavvy and @welch16 for the thoughtful review comments!

@JZauner, please follow up in this review issue once you have completed the review feedback.

JZauner · 2025-01-23T10:51:38Z

Thank you very much, @cansavvy and @welch16, for your kind words and constructive suggestions, and to @rwegener2 for coordinating everything! We strive to create a well-developed and user-accessible package, which is why we emphasized tutorials. We believe the suggested changes have made the package more robust and user-friendly.

We have implemented the following changes, which are live now as LightLogR 0.4.3. They address all suggestions the reviewers made.

Added a CONTRIBUTING.md file as well as a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file and referenced it both in the README, and the Import vignette
Broken up the paper summary into smaller sentences (note: this is in the main branch, not the paper branch)
Rewrote all vignettes/articles with the tidyverse style guide for pipes, including using the native pipe
Rewrote the README section that referenced a non-existing object LLdata so that it is unambiguous how to access that data
Slight changes to the vignettes/articles in sections with relative paths. I ran into problems using the here package (because it would have required me to rephrase paths according to the package structure, which I don't think is helpful for the user/viewer). Instead, I added comments to make clear where data is stored or accessed relative to the working directory, and also added a code line to conditionally create necessary folders, should they not exist already. This should eliminate most if not all troubles when rerunning them locally.

welch16 · 2025-01-30T20:55:52Z

Everything looks great, I checked the last point of my review list.

rwegener2 · 2025-02-03T21:03:23Z

Thanks, @welch16!

@cansavvy, do you feel the changes address your comments?

cansavvy · 2025-02-03T21:04:40Z

Thanks, @welch16!

@cansavvy, do you feel the changes address your comments?

Yes! Definitely! Looks great!

rwegener2 · 2025-02-03T21:08:45Z

Yes! Definitely! Looks great!

Sounds good @cansavvy, thanks for the speedy reply! Would you be able to check the final box on your checklist to confirm that you approve of the submission?

cansavvy · 2025-02-03T21:17:15Z

Sounds good @cansavvy, thanks for the speedy reply! Would you be able to check the final box on your checklist to confirm that you approve of the submission?

Ah yes of course. Done!

rwegener2 · 2025-02-04T13:12:56Z

Lovely. Thanks so much again to @welch16 and @cansavvy for your feedback as reviewers! JOSS wouldn't be possible without you.

@JZauner The next step in the review process is that I will go through the paper for a series of checks. I'll be looking for some information from you midway through. After that I will pass it off the the track editor and chief, who will do the final review and publication.

rwegener2 · 2025-02-04T13:13:10Z

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

1 - Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

Editor checks paper proof:

Download the proof and check rendering @editorialbot generate pdf
Check all references have DOIs, follow the links and check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a pull request)

2 - Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

3 - Editor Archiving and Submission Recommendation

Editor checks archive generated by author:

Check that the archive title, author list, and version tag are the same between the archive and the paper
Check the license is the same between the archive, the paper, and the Github repository
Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version

Editor double checks paper and recommends submission:

Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

rwegener2 · 2025-02-04T13:13:22Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2025-02-04T13:15:44Z

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

rwegener2 · 2025-02-04T13:16:49Z

@editorialbot check references

JZauner · 2025-02-20T11:11:44Z

Great! Thanks @rwegener2 !

The final version number is v0.5.3 (Civil Dawn) and the DOI to the Zenodo Archive repo is 10.5281/zenodo.14899662 (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14899662)

rwegener2 · 2025-02-20T15:08:04Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.14899662 as archive

editorialbot · 2025-02-20T15:08:07Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.14899662

rwegener2 · 2025-02-20T15:08:17Z

@editorialbot set v0.5.3 as version

editorialbot · 2025-02-20T15:08:19Z

Done! version is now v0.5.3

rwegener2 · 2025-02-20T15:09:12Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2025-02-20T15:11:27Z

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

rwegener2 · 2025-02-20T15:13:58Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2025-02-20T15:14:05Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-02-20T15:14:36Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1111/jsr.14225 is OK
- 10.1101/2025.01.07.631760 is OK
- 10.1177/14771535241248540 is OK
- 10.1101/2024.10.18.619012 is OK
- 10.1186/s12889-024-20206-4 is OK
- 10.1177/14771535221103258 is OK
- 10.1101/2024.10.02.616112 is OK
- 10.1123/jmpb.2018-0063 is OK
- 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20557.1 is OK
- 10.1177/20552076221144858 is OK
- 10.3390/clockssleep6040042 is OK
- 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114909 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0308768 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11562600 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Process Data from Wearable Light Logger...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: LightLogR: Tutorial: The whole game
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

rwegener2 · 2025-02-20T15:15:34Z

Looks good @JZauner! I've just completed my checks and recommended acceptance. The last person to review this submission will be the Track Editor. They will review and publish the paper.

Many thanks to @cansavvy and @welch16 for your thoughtful reviews! JOSS would not be possible without you both.

editorialbot · 2025-02-20T15:15:40Z

👋 @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#6447, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

JZauner · 2025-02-21T06:16:29Z

Thank you again, @rwegener2, @cansavvy, and @welch16 for your work and insightful feedback! It is tremendous that this type of open review style is available!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2025-02-21T14:13:28Z

JZauner · 2025-02-24T16:12:07Z

Thank you @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman ! I changed the archive title, and also rephrased the paper to be BE. The updated paper is in the paper branch

JZauner · 2025-03-10T14:18:59Z

Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman. Do we have to check off the remaining points (if so, they do not seem to be available to me)?

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2025-03-13T20:50:06Z

@JZauner apologies for the delay. I checked things just now and all is in order. I'll now proceed to process this for acceptance. Thanks.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2025-03-13T20:50:13Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2025-03-13T20:50:16Z

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

editorialbot · 2025-03-13T20:57:40Z

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: Zauner
  given-names: Johannes
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2171-4566"
- family-names: Hartmeyer
  given-names: Steffen
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-2668"
- family-names: Spitschan
  given-names: Manuel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8572-9268"
contact:
- family-names: Zauner
  given-names: Johannes
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2171-4566"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14899662
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Zauner
    given-names: Johannes
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2171-4566"
  - family-names: Hartmeyer
    given-names: Steffen
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-2668"
  - family-names: Spitschan
    given-names: Manuel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8572-9268"
  date-published: 2025-03-13
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07601
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 107
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7601
  title: "LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure
    data"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07601"
  volume: 10
title: "LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure
  data"

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 · 2025-03-13T20:57:45Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2025-03-13T20:57:46Z

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

editorialbot · 2025-03-13T20:57:47Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.07601 joss-papers#6499
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07601
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

JZauner · 2025-03-14T07:04:41Z

Amazing! Thank you @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, @rwegener2, @cansavvy, @welch16 and JOSS!

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2025-03-16T20:53:33Z

@JZauner congratulations on this JOSS publication!

Thanks for editing @rwegener2 !

And a special thank you to the reviewers: @cansavvy, @welch16 !!!

editorialbot · 2025-03-16T20:53:35Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.07601/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07601)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07601">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07601/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07601/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07601

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-open-journals

editorialbot added R review TeX Track: 2 (BCM) Biomedical Engineering, Biosciences, Chemistry, and Materials labels Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot assigned rwegener2 Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Dec 18, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure data #7377

Closed

JZauner mentioned this issue Jan 22, 2025

Implemented reviewer changes tscnlab/LightLogR#43

Merged

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Mar 13, 2025

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman closed this as completed Mar 16, 2025

[REVIEW]: LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure data #7601

[REVIEW]: LightLogR: Reproducible analysis of personal light exposure data #7601

Comments

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024

rwegener2 commented Dec 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024

welch16 commented Dec 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @welch16

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

cansavvy commented Dec 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @cansavvy

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

cansavvy commented Dec 20, 2024

welch16 commented Dec 29, 2024

rwegener2 commented Jan 6, 2025

JZauner commented Jan 23, 2025 • edited Loading

welch16 commented Jan 30, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 3, 2025

cansavvy commented Feb 3, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 3, 2025

cansavvy commented Feb 3, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 4, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 4, 2025 • edited Loading

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

1 - Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

2 - Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

3 - Editor Archiving and Submission Recommendation

rwegener2 commented Feb 4, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 4, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 4, 2025

JZauner commented Feb 20, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 20, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 20, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 20, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 20, 2025

rwegener2 commented Feb 20, 2025

editorialbot commented Feb 20, 2025

JZauner commented Feb 21, 2025

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Checks on repository

Checks on review issue

Checks on archive

Checks on paper

Remaining points:

JZauner commented Feb 24, 2025

JZauner commented Mar 10, 2025

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 13, 2025

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 13, 2025

editorialbot commented Mar 13, 2025

editorialbot commented Mar 13, 2025

editorialbot commented Mar 13, 2025

editorialbot commented Mar 13, 2025

editorialbot commented Mar 13, 2025

JZauner commented Mar 14, 2025

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Mar 16, 2025

editorialbot commented Mar 16, 2025

editorialbot commented Dec 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

welch16 commented Dec 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

cansavvy commented Dec 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JZauner commented Jan 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

rwegener2 commented Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading