[PRE REVIEW]: DeGAUSS: Decentralized Geomarker Assessment for Multi-Site Studies

[whedon]

Submitting author: @cole-brokamp (Cole Brokamp)
Repository: https://github.com/cole-brokamp/DeGAUSS
Version: v0.2
Editor: @pjotrp
Reviewers: @vsoch, @george-githinji

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @cole-brokamp. The JOSS editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@cole-brokamp if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @pjotrp it looks like you're currently assigned as the editor for this paper 🎉

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[arfon]

👋 @pjotrp - the submitting author suggested you as the handling editor.

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[cole-brokamp]

Based on the list of existing JOSS reviewers, I feel that @nuest @jhollist @vsoch @sgrieve would all make great reviewers.

[sgrieve]

This looks like really interesting work! Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with R to review this adequately.

[vsoch]

I am doing a trip followed by a cross country move starting next week, so I can't review imminently, but I'd be available at the end of July or early August!

I don't think R as a predominant language is totally necessary because the actual executable to review would be a container. For everyone in this thread, here is a direct link to the repo to help decide if you would be a suitable reviewer --> https://github.com/cole-brokamp/DeGAUSS. If you look at the README, interaction with the application is via docker commands.

@arfon is there a tag for container / Docker? I think many more that are familiar with containers (and perhaps not having the primary language as the executables inside) would still be able to provide some level of review. As long as one of the reviewers has more familiarity, I think it might be ok :L)

[cole-brokamp]

@vsoch makes a good point. In fact, this software is designed for users that don’t use R at all. Most of the end users hardly have any experience with command line programming at all.

[arfon]

@arfon is there a tag for container / Docker? I think many more that are familiar with containers (and perhaps not having the primary language as the executables inside) would still be able to provide some level of review. As long as one of the reviewers has more familiarity, I think it might be ok :L)

We don't label submissions as such yet but I can definitely see the argument for doing so...

[cole-brokamp]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

--> Check article proof 📄 <--

[pjotrp]

This is an interesting method for sure. I can be an editor if @vsoch is happy to review. There is no hurry.

[pjotrp]

@whedon assign @pjotrp as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @pjotrp

[pjotrp]

@george-githinji are you Ok to review?

[george-githinji]

I have some immediate deadlines and I will only have a proper look from mid next week. If you get a second reviewer that will be great. Thanks.

[pjotrp]

@whedon assign @george-githinji as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @george-githinji

[pjotrp]

@whedon assign @vsoch as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer is @vsoch

[pjotrp]

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

[pjotrp]

@whedon add @george-githinji as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, @george-githinji is now a reviewer

[pjotrp]

@whedon list reviewers

[whedon]

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

[pjotrp]

@whedon assign @pjotrp as editor

[whedon]

OK, the editor is @pjotrp

[pjotrp]

@arfon hmm. So I would like @vsoch and @george-githinji as reviewers. Is that the case now?

[arfon]

@arfon hmm. So I would like @vsoch and @george-githinji as reviewers. Is that the case now?

Yep, looks to be. You can always refresh the page and look at the top of the issue thread:

[pjotrp]

@arfon Got it. I was looking at the github assignees...

[pjotrp]

@whedon start review magic-word=bananas

[whedon]

OK, I've started the review over in #812. Feel free to close this issue now!