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

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

What happens now?

This submission is currently in a pre-review state which means we are waiting for an editor to be assigned and for them to find some reviewers for your submission. This may take anything between a few hours to a couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience 😸

You can help the editor by looking at this list of potential reviewers to identify individuals who might be able to review your submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Also, feel free to suggest individuals who are not on this list by mentioning their GitHub handles here.

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon assign @danielskatz as editor

OK, the editor is @danielskatz

👋 @jjmortensen - I have some ideas for reviewers, but do you also have some you want to recommend? Potentially from this list of potential reviewers

👋 @dthain - Would you or one of the members of your group be interested in reviewing this submission for JOSS?

Maybe -- What are the expected standards for papers published in JOSS re length, novelty, literature review, etc.?

What are the expected standards for papers published in JOSS re length, novelty, literature review, etc.?

Overall, see our reviewer guidelines and our review criteria. Specifically:

• Re length: JOSS papers are typically 250-1000 words, but the review is of both the paper and the software. See https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#what-should-my-paper-contain for guidance about paper expectations.
• Re novelty and literature review: Novelty is not a criterion for JOSS submissions, since the goal of JOSS is to create a citable object for software that is likely to be used - Also see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html#an-important-note-about-novel-software-and-citations-of-relevant-work

So, it seems like the view criteria mostly address the "maturity" of the software in terms of documentation, installation, examples, etc, and the paper submission is more of a "cover letter". Am I getting that correctly?

the "review criteria"

Yes, a main purpose again is to create a placeholder that fits the paper citation system to help developers get credit for their work in the academic system. A second purpose is to improve the software and software practices through the open, collaborative, and iterative review process.

@danielskatz That's a long list of "potential reviewers"! From a very quick scan of the list, maybe these are a good fit: pragyansmita, Funnelfiasco, marksantcroos, gonsie, zbeekman?

👋 @pragyansmita, @funnelfiasco, @marksantcroos, @gonsie, @zbeekman
Would a couple of you be interested in reviewing this submission?

I’m happy to review.

Thanks @gonsie - I'll add you to the system, but will wait until we have one or two more reviewers before we start the review process.

@whedon assign @gonsie as reviewer

OK, the reviewer is @gonsie

I'm a bit swamped right now. If you're in a bind and can't find another reviewer I'll do it, but in the interest of a timely review let's see if anyone else bites.

Hi @danielskatz, @jjmortensen, I can take it.

Thanks @marksantcroos - hope you are doing well :)
I'll add you as a reviewer.

@dthain - we'll go ahead without you, but feel free to follow-along in the review thread that will be created shortly, perhaps to familiarize yourself with the process for a future review opportunity.

@whedon add @marksantcroos as reviewer

OK, @marksantcroos is now a reviewer

@whedon start review

OK, I've started the review over in #1844. Feel free to close this issue now!