[REVIEW]: tidyqpcr: Quantitative PCR analysis in the tidyverse.

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ewallace (Edward Wallace)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci/tidyqpcr
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewers: @arfon
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6757624

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51996e6ce004532d31c0d83a6a806334"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51996e6ce004532d31c0d83a6a806334/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51996e6ce004532d31c0d83a6a806334/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/51996e6ce004532d31c0d83a6a806334)

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

@arfon, 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 @arfon 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

@arfon, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.03 s (990.4 files/s, 155879.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               12            145            885            779
Rmd                              4            385            527            656
Markdown                         5            146              0            422
JSON                             1              0              0            233
YAML                             5             22              4            113
TeX                              1             13              0             77
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            28            711           1416           2280
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 820

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.4473 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp578 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1186/1471-2164-13-296/FIGURES/4 is INVALID

[editorialbot]

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

[arfon]

@ewallace – I'm going to move to accept this submission in JOSS given the earlier review in rOpenSci.

Before I do this though could you:

• Take a look at fixing up the 10.1186/1471-2164-13-296/FIGURES/4 DOI? This looks to be invalid.
• Please make an archive of the software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? For the Zenodo/figshare archive, please make sure that:
  • The title of the archive is the same as the JOSS paper title
  • That the authors of the archive are the same as the JOSS paper authors

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[ewallace]

Thank you @arfon!

• I fixed the DOI issue in fix doi and capitalisation in paper.bib ropensci/tidyqpcr#195, thanks for finding that.
• tidyqpcr is now archived on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6757624
  • I checked the titles are the same
  • I checked the authors are the same

I hope that all works.

[arfon]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6757624 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6757624

[arfon]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.4473 is OK
- 10.1186/1471-2164-13-296 is OK
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp578 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#3314

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3314, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[arfon]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04507 joss-papers#3315
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04507
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[arfon]

@ewallace – thanks for making those changes. Your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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.04507/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04507)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04507">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04507/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04507/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04507

This is how it will look in your documentation:

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:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[ewallace]

Hello @arfon! Thank you very much for your help.

Unfortunately we have an issue with the proof, that it still has a "DRAFT" watermark. How can we fix that?