Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: Port: A software tool for digital data donation #5596

Closed
editorialbot opened this issue Jun 27, 2023 · 82 comments
Closed

[REVIEW]: Port: A software tool for digital data donation #5596

editorialbot opened this issue Jun 27, 2023 · 82 comments
Assignees
Labels
accepted JavaScript published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review Shell TeX Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Jun 27, 2023

Submitting author: @lauraboeschoten (Laura Boeschoten)
Repository: https://github.com/eyra/port
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): v1.0.1-d3I-jboss-paper
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @osorensen
Reviewers: @kaustavbhattacharjee, @leonardojaneis
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8401806

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11922a83c07ff2fc0a2cb70d962984aa"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11922a83c07ff2fc0a2cb70d962984aa/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11922a83c07ff2fc0a2cb70d962984aa/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/11922a83c07ff2fc0a2cb70d962984aa)

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

@kaustavbhattacharjee & @leonardojaneis, 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 @osorensen 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 @kaustavbhattacharjee

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.12 s (1261.9 files/s, 311948.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             9              0              0          30924
TypeScript                      78            389             46           3144
JavaScript                      40             17              9           2277
Markdown                         2            237              0            678
Python                           5             91             61            261
TeX                              1             18              0            145
SVG                             15              0              0            115
CSS                              3             13              0             60
HTML                             1              3             20             25
Bourne Shell                     1              3              0             13
TOML                             1              3              0             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           156            774            136          37654
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Wordcount for paper.md is 2268

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

OK DOIs

- 10.26116/techreg.2020.010 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5156931 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1126/science.1197872 may be a valid DOI for title: Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences
- 10.1080/13645579.2019.1682840 may be a valid DOI for title: Digital methods in a post-API environment
- 10.4324/9781003206972-2 may be a valid DOI for title: After the ‘APIcalypse’: Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research
- 10.31235/osf.io/56f4q may be a valid DOI for title: Computational research in the post-API age
- 10.5117/ccr2022.2.002.boes may be a valid DOI for title: A framework for privacy preserving digital trace data collection through data donation
- 10.31219/osf.io/krqb9 may be a valid DOI for title: Promises and pitfalls of social media data donations
- 10.3233/ds-210035 may be a valid DOI for title: Automatic de-identification of data download packages
- 10.1177/07591063211061754 may be a valid DOI for title: Which is your favorite music genre? A validity comparison of Facebook data and survey data
- 10.31235/osf.io/xjk6t may be a valid DOI for title: OSD2F: An open-source data donation framework
- 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100444 may be a valid DOI for title: Privacy-preserving local analysis of digital trace data: A proof-of-concept

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

👋 @kaustavbhattacharjee, @naltun, @leonardojaneis, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?

@leonardojaneis
Copy link

Hi @osorensen, I started the review last week ... Do you have any templates available for review? Where do I need to send? Thanks

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

osorensen commented Jul 24, 2023

Good to hear that you've started, @leonardojaneis. You can find the full guidelines here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

You can also see the most important points at the top of this issue. In particular, I suggest starting by generating your review checklist by writing the following line in a comment in this issue:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

We use checklist based reviews, so there is no need to send a report, but you're encouraged to open issues in the source repository if you have suggestions for improvement of the software. If you do, please include a link to this review issue, so we can keep track. Smaller comments can also be written in this thread.

You're also welcome to reach out to me if you have further questions.

@kaustavbhattacharjee
Copy link

👋 @kaustavbhattacharjee, @naltun, @leonardojaneis, could you please update us on how it's going with your reviews?

Yes, I have started my review late last week. Hopefully will complete it by this week.

@kaustavbhattacharjee
Copy link

kaustavbhattacharjee commented Jul 26, 2023

Review checklist for @kaustavbhattacharjee

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

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/eyra/port?
  • 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 (@lauraboeschoten) 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?

@kaustavbhattacharjee
Copy link

@osorensen I have completed my review. Here are the comments for the checkboxes I did not tick:

Contribution and authorship: I cannot see any commits from the submitting author (@lauraboeschoten) as seen on this page: https://github.com/eyra/port/graphs/contributors

Example Usage: Though there are instructions on how to host it online, there isn't any example/demo website that I can try. It would be great if the authors could add a video of implementing Port on a live website or something similar.

Community guidelines: I did not observe any directions on contributing to the software. The authors can mention if they would like new collaborators to open issues on Github with specific labels or contact them directly.

State of the field: I could find any comparison with other similar tools (in the paper).

References: Some of the cited sources are websites. I think it's a good idea to add the date it was accessed.

Meta comment: I would recommend the authors change the title of the React app. It still shows the default "React App" title when viewed in a browser.

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

Thanks a lot for your review @kaustavbhattacharjee!

@lauraboeschoten, you're welcome to start addressing the comments immediately, even though the other reviewers are not ready yet.

@leonardojaneis
Copy link

Hi @osorensen, here is my review.

          ## Review checklist for @leonardojaneis 

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

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/eyra/port?
  • 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 (@lauraboeschoten) 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?

General checks

Contribution and authorship: the submitting author (@lauraboeschoten) ​does not show any commits.

Documentation

Community guidelines: There are no clear guidelines.

Example usage: There could be at least one example of use available.

Software paper

Summary: The text offers a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience.

A statement of need: the paper does have the section 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: the authors do not describe any comparison to other commonly-used packages. This step is very important because it provides valuable context, insights, and considerations for users, researchers, and developers when evaluating and adopting new software tools.

Quality of writing: in general the writing quality is good, I would suggest to include a concluding section summarizing the key points and emphasizing the importance of Port as a software tool for digital data donation. Some sentences may require rephrasing to improve clarity and avoid potential confusion in the Summary section.

References: It seems that all the relevant sources have been cited properly in the text. The reference list looks well-organized and complete. Each entry provides the essential details required to locate the source. Reviewer @kaustavbhattacharjee point can be adopted.

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

Thanks a lot for your review @leonardojaneis!

@lauraboeschoten, please report back here when you have addressed the issues, and you're welcome to reach out to me if you have further questions.

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

👋 @naltun, could you please update us on how it's going with your review?

@lauraboeschoten
Copy link

Dear editor and reviewers,
thanks a lot for your feedback! Below you can find our point-by-point response. Some comments only have a response written below, others have changes in the text of the paper. A new version of the paper is now online. Other points require changes in either the code of Port or on the readme. For these, I made issues. However, as some of our programmers are still on holiday, these are not resolved yet and will be picked up in the coming weeks. You can follow the issues, but I will also send notifications in this thread once issues have been resolved.
I hope this is sufficient and clear enough for now, but do let me know when you have any questions or comments!
Best,
Laura

By @kaustavbhattacharjee and @leonardojaneis:

  • No commits from submitting author

Good to point this out. I can provide some background information regarding the complete list of co-authors on this manuscript. As you can infer from the software, it is a tool for data collection. As it is very generic in its set-up, the group consists of applied researchers, methodologists, legal experts and research engineers and software developers employed universities or at private companies. As a methodologist, I am not involved as a programmer in this project. However, I developed the generic framework which Port facilitates and was highly involved in the proof-of-concept of Port, which was developed prior to the version currently under review (see the references). I am currently involved as a project lead, which means that I frequently have design and refinement meetings with the developers, and take responsibility for circling any updates back to the team of researchers and involve them when relevant.

  • State of the field: I could find any comparison with other similar tools (in the paper).
  • State of the field: the authors do not describe any comparison to other commonly-used packages. This step is very important because it provides valuable context, insights, and considerations for users, researchers, and developers when evaluating and adopting new software tools.

Thanks for pointing this out, I included the following paragraph in the ‘statement of need’ section: “In recent years, researchers have implemented the local processing step in multiple ways. Studies by van Driel et al. (2022) and (Kmetty & Németh, 2022) used an approach where DDPs were donated directly, so without a local processing step taking place. However, extensive de-identification procedures were in place to guarantee participant’s privacy (see e.g. Boeschoten et al., 2021). In addition, multiple apps have been developed to enable this local processing step. For example, the app OSD2F (Araujo et al., 2022) allows to select .json files within the DDP and performs certain de-identification steps prior to donation. Alternatively, the app Port (Boeschoten, Mendrik, et al., 2022) allows for more rigorous data processing, as researchers can write a custom Python script that locally performs any requested processing task. While this approach undoubtedly offers greater flexibility, it concurrently places a larger level of responsibility on the researcher. Other apps have been documented in academic literature. However, the feasibility of their reuse for researchers outside their respective institutions or for other platforms as intended is more ambiguous. Examples of such apps are Designerly Data Donation (Gómez Ortega et al., 2021), the Data Donation Module (Pfiffner et al., 2022), the Social Media Donator (Zannettou et al., 2023) and WhatsR (Kohne, 2023).

  • References: Some of the cited sources are websites. I think it's a good idea to add the date it was accessed.
  • References: It seems that all the relevant sources have been cited properly in the text. The reference list looks well-organized and complete. Each entry provides the essential details required to locate the source. Reviewer @kaustavbhattacharjee point can be adopted.

I included the date visited for the software references.

By @kaustavbhattacharjee:

  • Quality of writing: in general the writing quality is good, I would suggest to include a concluding section summarizing the key points and emphasizing the importance of Port as a software tool for digital data donation. Some sentences may require rephrasing to improve clarity and avoid potential confusion in the Summary section.

I included a “Conclusion” paragraph at the end of the manuscript:
To summarize, by utilizing GDPR's right of data access, data donation is a promising new approach to collect digital trace data for research purposes. The data donation workflow as introduced by Boeschoten et al., (2022) introduces the idea of locally processing the obtained digital traces at the device of a participant as such that only the digital traces that are of legitimate interest to the researcher are shared. The software introduced in this paper, Port, allows a research to configure a custom data donation study. The research can decide: Which digital platform to investigate, which digital traces to collect, how to present the digital traces to the participant, and what to communicate to the participant throughout this process. These functionalities make Port a generic and useful tool for any researcher interested in collecting digital traces for research purposes.

By @kaustavbhattacharjee and @leonardojaneis:

  • Example Usage: Though there are instructions on how to host it online, there isn't any example/demo website that I can try. It would be great if the authors could add a video of implementing Port on a live website or something similar.
  • Example usage: There could be at least one example of use available.

I discussed these comments with the development team, but we were quite confused specifically the first comment seems to refer to different aspects of the tool.

Regarding hosting of the tool. As data donation studies using Port potentially involve special category personal data, high security measures should be in place when used for actual data collection, and relies on infrastructure available to the researcher. Terraform configuration files to host Port on Azure can be found in the following repository: https://github.com/d3i-infra/infrastructure-d3i-pilot. However, as configuration highly depends on the infrastructure available to the researcher, we do not think providing instruction videos on how to do this would be very useful. We can include a link to this repository on Github and keep a list if other configurations come available. We are currently also in the process of integrating into a software foundation which will provide managed hosting solutions as well as manuals for self-hosting.

Regarding examples of use. We have a couple, see:
o https://github.com/d3i-infra/port-d3i-pilot
o https://github.com/d3i-infra/port-vu-pilot
o https://github.com/d3i-infra/port-news-dynamics
o https://github.com/d3i-infra/port-pilot-netflix

Also note that we host the website https://datadonation.eu/ where we plan to provide more context on how to perform data donation studies in general and refer to external sources such as Python scrips of data donation applications and configuration files.

I added an issue to Github to include these in the readme, please follow: eyra/port#44

By @kaustavbhattacharjee:

  • Meta comment: I would recommend the authors change the title of the React app. It still shows the default "React App" title when viewed in a browser.

I added an issue to GitHub to change this, please follow: eyra/port#45

By @kaustavbhattacharjee and @leonardojaneis:

  • Community guidelines: I did not observe any directions on contributing to the software. The authors can mention if they would like new collaborators to open issues on Github with specific labels or contact them directly.
  • Community guidelines: There are no clear guidelines.
    We are working on developing community guidelines, I created an issue to Github to add this, please follow: Create community guidelines  eyra/port#46

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

Thanks for your response, @lauraboeschoten.

Regarding authorship, I've discussed this with other JOSS editors, and we agree that your response to this issue is satisfactory, and in line with our guidelines for authorship.

Regarding the other issues, I'll await the reviewers' response to them.

@leonardojaneis
Copy link

Hi @osorensen.

I am concerned to note that the innovative reviews by the author seem to comprehensively address the guidelines and suggestions that were requested by me as a reviewer. The review contribution made by the @lauraboeschoten to the final quality of the material is remarkable. I thank the author for his effective collaboration and for the positive response to the observations presented.

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

Thanks a lot @leonardojaneis. Could you please your review checklist to finish your review?

@leonardojaneis
Copy link

Hi @osorensen, here is my final review version.

          ## Review checklist for @leonardojaneis 

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

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/eyra/port?
  • 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 (@lauraboeschoten) 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?

General checks

Contribution and authorship: the submitting author (@lauraboeschoten) ​made it clear highlighting that the list of co-authors of this manuscript is quite diverse, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the project. The author played an important role in the project as a methodologist, however he is not directly involved as a programmer in this project.

Documentation

Community guidelines: The authors are working on developing community guidelines.

Example usage: The authors provided usage examples.

Software paper

Summary: The text offers a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience.

A statement of need: The authors included a new paragraph in the text that includes the statement of need.

State of the field: The authors included a new paragraph in the text that contemplates the state of the field.

Quality of writing: The authors have included a “Conclusion” paragraph at the end of the manuscript that summarizes the key points and emphasizing the importance of Port as a software tool for digital data donation.

References: The authors have included date of visit for software references.

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

Thank you @leonardojaneis!

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Couldn't check the bibtex because branch name is incorrect: v1.0.1-d3I-jboss-paper

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@lauraboeschoten, do I understand correctly that the revised paper in the branch v1.0.1-d3I-jboss-paper? If so, I'll have to ask @openjournals/dev for some technical help before I can proceed with this submission.

@xuanxu
Copy link
Member

xuanxu commented Oct 2, 2023

The bot fails to checkout the v1.0.1-d3I-jboss-paper branch because it needs a unique git reference but there is a tag with the same name as the branch.
The easiest ways to solve the problem would be having a separate branch for the review with a unique name or rename/delete that tag.

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the quick response @xuanxu.

@lauraboeschoten, could you please delete or rename the tag, and report here when done?

@trbKnl
Copy link

trbKnl commented Oct 2, 2023

@osorensen @lauraboeschoten I deleted the offending tag

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot check references

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/science.1197872 is OK
- 10.1080/13645579.2019.1682840 is OK
- 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637447 is OK
- 10.31235/osf.io/56f4q is OK
- 10.5117/ccr2022.2.002.boes is OK
- 10.26116/techreg.2020.010 is OK
- 10.31219/osf.io/krqb9 is OK
- 10.3233/ds-210035 is OK
- 10.1177/07591063211061754 is OK
- 10.31235/osf.io/xjk6t is OK
- 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100444 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5156931 is OK
- 10.1145/3460418.3479362 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@lauraboeschoten, at this point could you:

  • Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
  • Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
  • Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
  • Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with recommending acceptance of the submission.

@trbKnl
Copy link

trbKnl commented Oct 3, 2023

@osorensen @lauraboeschoten

Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.

tag: v1.0.1

Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)

https://zenodo.org/record/8401806

Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.

should be ✅

Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

DOI

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.8401806 as archive

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.8401806

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot set v1.0.1 as version

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done! version is now v1.0.1

@osorensen
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot recommend-accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/science.1197872 is OK
- 10.1080/13645579.2019.1682840 is OK
- 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637447 is OK
- 10.31235/osf.io/56f4q is OK
- 10.5117/ccr2022.2.002.boes is OK
- 10.26116/techreg.2020.010 is OK
- 10.31219/osf.io/krqb9 is OK
- 10.3233/ds-210035 is OK
- 10.1177/07591063211061754 is OK
- 10.31235/osf.io/xjk6t is OK
- 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100444 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5156931 is OK
- 10.1145/3460418.3479362 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👋 @openjournals/sbcs-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#4647, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

@editorialbot editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Oct 3, 2023
@oliviaguest
Copy link
Member

@editorialbot accept

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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: Boeschoten
  given-names: Laura
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3536-0474"
- family-names: Schipper
  given-names: Niek C.
  name-particle: de
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8462-9791"
- family-names: Mendrik
  given-names: Adriënne M.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6631-7068"
- family-names: Veen
  given-names: Emiel
  name-particle: van der
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4895-6584"
- family-names: Struminskaya
  given-names: Bella
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5944-8163"
- family-names: Janssen
  given-names: Heleen
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2785-5741"
- family-names: Araujo
  given-names: Theo
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4633-9339"
contact:
- family-names: Boeschoten
  given-names: Laura
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3536-0474"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8401806
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Boeschoten
    given-names: Laura
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3536-0474"
  - family-names: Schipper
    given-names: Niek C.
    name-particle: de
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8462-9791"
  - family-names: Mendrik
    given-names: Adriënne M.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6631-7068"
  - family-names: Veen
    given-names: Emiel
    name-particle: van der
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4895-6584"
  - family-names: Struminskaya
    given-names: Bella
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5944-8163"
  - family-names: Janssen
    given-names: Heleen
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2785-5741"
  - family-names: Araujo
    given-names: Theo
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4633-9339"
  date-published: 2023-10-03
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05596
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 90
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5596
  title: "Port: A software tool for digital data donation"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05596"
  volume: 8
title: "Port: A software tool for digital data donation"

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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.05596 joss-papers#4648
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05596
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

@editorialbot editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Oct 3, 2023
@oliviaguest
Copy link
Member

Huge thanks to the reviewers @kaustavbhattacharjee, @leonardojaneisand editor @osorensen! ✨ JOSS appreciates your work and effort. ✨ Also, big congratulations to the authors @lauraboeschoten! 🥳 🍾

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

🎉🎉🎉 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.05596/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05596)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05596">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05596/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05596/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05596

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

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:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
accepted JavaScript published Papers published in JOSS recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. review Shell TeX Track: 4 (SBCS) Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants