[PRE REVIEW]: OpenRepGrid: An R Package for the Analysis of Repertory Grid Data

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @markheckmann (Mark Heckmann)
Repository: https://github.com/markheckmann/OpenRepGrid
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: 0.1.15
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @yiqunchen, @rlbarter
Managing EiC: Olivia Guest

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/88b1ba29095623f416d9fe944afe5cd8)

Author instructions

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

@markheckmann 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=0.01 s (447.5 files/s, 70437.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              1             28              0            320
Markdown                         1             77              0            155
R                                1             15              9             21
YAML                             1              1              4             18
Rmd                              1             47             80             12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             5            168             93            526
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 2439

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.03292 is OK
- 10.1017/s1138741600004765 is OK
- 10.3758/bf03195461 is OK
- 10.1080/107205300265955 is OK
- 10.4324/9780203405970 is OK
- 10.1002/9781118508275.ch9 is OK
- 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1982.tb01506.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.322 is OK
- 10.1111/papt.12269 is OK
- 10.1080/10720537.2018.1499159 is OK
- 10.1177/001872674900200205 is OK
- 10.1080/10720537.2015.1134368 is OK
- 10.1080/08936039208404940 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.150 is OK
- 10.1080/08936039208404938 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

tidyHeatmap: an R package for modular heatmap production based on tidy principles
Submitting author: @stemangiola
Handling editor: @karthik (Retired)
Reviewers: @rlbarter, @AliciaSchep
Similarity score: 0.8278

rmap: An R package to plot and compare tabular data on customizable maps across scenarios and time
Submitting author: @zarrarkhan
Handling editor: @hugoledoux (Active)
Reviewers: @CamilleMorlighem, @maczokni
Similarity score: 0.8227

grapesAgri1: Collection of Shiny Apps for Data Analysis in Agriculture
Submitting author: @pratheesh3780
Handling editor: @fabian-s (Active)
Reviewers: @adithirgis, @elimillera
Similarity score: 0.8209

rigr: Regression, Inference, and General Data Analysis Tools in R
Submitting author: @yiqunchen
Handling editor: @osorensen (Active)
Reviewers: @stefanocoretta, @tomsing1
Similarity score: 0.8161

overviewR - Easily Explore Your Data in R
Submitting author: @cosimameyer
Handling editor: @samhforbes (Active)
Reviewers: @drmowinckels, @milenamilena
Similarity score: 0.8159

⚠️ 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.

[markheckmann]

Dear Editors,

the following two reviewers would be a good fit. They were already reviewers on this JOSS submission last year. Hence, they are already familiar with the repertory grid technique.

• brunaw
• aj2duncan

[oliviaguest]

@AJQuinn do you have capacity for editing this? ☺️

[AJQuinn]

Sure, can do!

[AJQuinn]

@editorialbot assign @AJQuinn as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @AJQuinn is now the editor

[AJQuinn]

👋 Hello - @Matherion @aj2duncan @brunaw @cosimameyer would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The code repository and paper details are further up in this thread.

We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html - please check them out for more information and please feel free to ask questions in this thread.

Cheers!

[cosimameyer]

Hi, thanks so much for reaching out and considering me as a reviewer! Unfortunately, I have to decline because my schedule doesn't allow it at the moment. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a smooth reviewing cycle 😊

[AJQuinn]

👋 Hello - @zarrarkhan @stemangiola @humanfactors would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The code repository and paper details are further up in this thread.

We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html - please check them out for more information and please feel free to ask questions in this thread.

Cheers!

[oliviaguest]

@AJQuinn might be time to ask others, I think?

[Matherion]

God, sorry - I'm never on GitHub any more. I'm trying to basically avoid closed source software when I can, so I first went to GitLab ad now moved to CodeBerg, so GitHub is quite 'ancient history' for me by now, sorry!!!

This looks like a great paper, and I'd be willing to review it if that's still an option as far as you're concerned.

However 😕 We're in the process of moving house, and the whole selling/buying thing, apparently, is quite exhausting and stressful. This means I expect bandwidth to only increase enough to do this review towards the end of April, early May...

I know this is probably not great news, but I thought I'd offer it nonetheless. Better than ghosting you 😬 I'm glad I happened to see the GitHub email (which also goes to an account I don't use too much any more 😬). But sorry for having been nonresponsive for basically the entire year! 🙂

If you're responding and I'm not responding sufficiently timely, I'm also at @[email protected]!

Have a good weekend! 🙂

[markheckmann]

Dear @AJQuinn, were you successful in finding reviewers?

Dear @Matherion: Do you happen to have time for a review over the summer? :)

[humanfactors]

Hi all, I also need to decline as it's somewhat outside my expertise area and I am overwhelmed with other commitments. Good luck to the authors in finding someone though.

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

👋 @markheckmann – apologies for the delay here. I'm going to take on this submission as editor.

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

👋 @Matherion – I realize it's a while since we've been in touch here. Would you still be willing to provide a review for this submission?

[arfon]

👋 @yiqunchen @stemangiola @rlbarter @AliciaSchep would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? The submission under consideration is OpenRepGrid: An R Package for the Analysis of Repertory Grid Data

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. You can learn more about the process in these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Based on your experience, we think you might be able to provide a great review of this submission. Please let me know if you think you can help us out!

Many thanks
Arfon

[yiqunchen]

I am happy to provide a review -- likely by end of july -- does that timeline work for this submission?

[rlbarter]

I'm not overly familiar with the type of data that this package involves, but if you can't find any other reviewers, I'm happy to review in regards to basic completeness of documentation, etc. which if I recall, is mostly what JOSS reviews involve anyway. My timeline would be similar to Yiqun's.

[arfon]

Thanks @yiqunchen and @rlbarter – that sounds great. I'll add you both as reviewers now and get the review issue started.

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @yiqunchen as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @yiqunchen is now the editor

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @rlbarter as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @rlbarter is now the editor

[arfon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

Can't start a review without reviewers

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @yiqunchen as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@yiqunchen added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot add @rlbarter as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@rlbarter added to the reviewers list!

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor (!)

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[arfon]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @arfon is now the editor

[arfon]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6918.

[arfon]

@yiqunchen, @rlbarter, @markheckmann – see you all over in #6918 where the actual review will take place.