[PRE REVIEW]: OpenSCAD Batch Exporter: Automating Parametric Design Workflows for Research and Engineering

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @CameronBrooks11 (Cameron Brooks)
Repository: https://github.com/CameronBrooks11/OpenSCAD-Batch-Export
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0cc4cfff68079348fb5b90f3bde122f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0cc4cfff68079348fb5b90f3bde122f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0cc4cfff68079348fb5b90f3bde122f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c0cc4cfff68079348fb5b90f3bde122f)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @CameronBrooks11. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@CameronBrooks11 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.ohx.2020.e00135 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ohx.2018.e00038 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ohx.2018.e00042 is OK
- 10.1021/acscentsci.0c01354 is OK
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0225795 is OK
- 10.3390/inventions8020061 is OK
- 10.3390/inventions6040071 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ohx.2020.e00131 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ohx.2021.e00255 is OK
- 10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.004 is OK
- 10.3390/designs2010002 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Multi File export
- No DOI given, and none found for title: uwo-fast/SnapTessSCAD
- No DOI given, and none found for title: openscad/openscad
- No DOI given, and none found for title: kennetek/gridfinity-rebuilt-openscad
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Using batch files and OpenSCAD to generate STL’s

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.02 s (1044.9 files/s, 136879.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                           4            177            340            903
Markdown                         5            136              0            264
TeX                              1             18              0            243
CSV                              4              0              0            203
YAML                             2             35              1            179
JSON                             4              0              0            121
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            20            366            341           1913
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    38	Cameron K Brooks
    17	CameronBrooks11
    13	Cam Brooks
     1	Cameron Brooks

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 855

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

Open-Source Pattern Creation Tool for Medical Extended Reality Image Quality Assessment
Submitting author: @brendanc490
Handling editor: @osorensen (Active)
Reviewers: @codeling, @osorensen
Similarity score: 0.6496

eights: BS 8888:2011 first angle projection drawings from FreeCAD 3D model
Submitting author: @danielhatton
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @devinberg
Similarity score: 0.6477

Simmate: a framework for materials science
Submitting author: @jacksund
Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active)
Reviewers: @bocklund, @utf
Similarity score: 0.6476

BlenderProc2: A Procedural Pipeline for Photorealistic Rendering
Submitting author: @themasterlink
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @nicoguaro, @natevm, @SelvamArul
Similarity score: 0.6435

DTCC Builder: A mesh generator for automatic, efficient, and robust mesh generation for large-scale city modeling and simulation
Submitting author: @anderslogg
Handling editor: @crvernon (Active)
Reviewers: @ifthompson, @ipadjen
Similarity score: 0.6393

⚠️ 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.

[danielskatz]

👋 @CameronBrooks11 - thanks for your submission. Due to the relatively small amount of code, the editors will now discuss if it meets the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. It's also not clear to me that this is research software as defined by JOSS.

You should hear back in a week or two.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[danielskatz]

👋 @CameronBrooks11 - I'm sorry to say that after discussion amongst the JOSS editors, we have decided that this submission does not meet the substantial scholarly effort criterion for review by JOSS. Also, we have decided that this submission is not research software as defined by JOSS.

Editor comments include "it seems to be more like an automation script rather than a full software package" and "it seems like a utility that is convenient for handling files and not actual research software."

This does not mean that it is not software that is useful in research, but just that JOSS does not consider it in scope for review as research software of sufficient scholarly scope.

Please see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#other-venues-for-reviewing-and-publishing-software-packages for other suggestions for how you might receive credit for your work.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.