[PRE REVIEW]: ReScience C gets a makeover

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @khinsen (Konrad Hinsen)
Repository: https://github.com/ReScience/editorial-transition-to-open-journals
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Editor: @oliviaguest
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Benoît Girard

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://resciencec.theoj.org/papers/c1e22348121fc476de3028a334dec427"><img src="https://resciencec.theoj.org/papers/c1e22348121fc476de3028a334dec427/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://resciencec.theoj.org/papers/c1e22348121fc476de3028a334dec427/status.svg)](https://resciencec.theoj.org/papers/c1e22348121fc476de3028a334dec427)

Author instructions

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

The AEiC suggestion for the handling editor is @benoit-girard.

@khinsen 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 ReScienceC 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

[benoit-girard]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @benoit-girard, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

# List all ReScience C Editors
@editorialbot list editors

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set rescience-paper as branch

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Reject paper
@editorialbot reject

# Withdraw paper
@editorialbot withdraw

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@editorialbot invite @(.*) as editor

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Accept and publish the paper
@editorialbot accept

# Update data on an accepted/published paper
@editorialbot reaccept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

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

[xuanxu]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[khinsen]

@benoit-girard Thanks for editing this submission!

Suitable reviewers would be rougier and oliviaguest.

[khinsen]

BTW, the Web site says about this paper: "This paper is review pending but the review hasn't started. Editor and reviewer assignments are happening over on GitHub »". And on the "Editor dashboard", there's 1 paper with no editor. Finally, the first post on this thread lists @benoit-girard as "Managing EiC", but not as the handling editor. So... we need to find a topic editor for this submission!

[oliviaguest]

👋 hello!

[benoit-girard]

@oliviaguest are you OK with being the topic editor of this editorial?

[oliviaguest]

You three author it and I edit it?

[khinsen]

I think the idea is that we are all authors, but that we play different roles in the editing process to test our new toolbox. So "being topic editor" comes down to "being the main tester of the topic editor tools".

[benoit-girard]

Yes that's how I understood it too: you co-author, and you accept to test the topic editor tools.

[oliviaguest]

Let's do it. :)

[benoit-girard]

The paper is fine, we just need to solve the "author's guidelines" problem. Who should write it? And more importantly: what information do we want to put in these guide lines?

[benoit-girard]

I suppose we need to add something like that to the webpage:

How to submit?

• Upload your code to a public repository (e.g. GitHub)
• Upload your data (if any) to a public repository (e.g. Zenodo)
• Fill the submission form
• Answer reviewers comments and modify your code and paper accordingly
• (IS THIS STILL THE CASE ?) Once accepted, you will need to: complete the metadata in collaboration with the editor

[khinsen]

I volunteer to write it, but we need input and iterated proofreading from everyone to get it reasonably correct and complete.

[rougier]

One important thing to add is the availability of a bot that can compile the paper for your when you push on GitHub. No need to have a full latex install on your machine. I think Juan gave the link on JOSS but I don't remember where it it. Also, we'll need to get rid of the overleaf template once migration is over.

Last, we whould have a meeting soon...

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[oliviaguest]

@editorialbot assign @oliviaguest as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @oliviaguest is now the editor

[khinsen]

Here is a first draft of the author guidelines: https://codimd.math.cnrs.fr/LmxXC9seSl2_E1uEbk6crA#

The biggest part is a copy of the JOSS guidelines, with minor adaptations. However, there are parts in it that I don't understand, so this will require some work. Please have a look at the comments marked in red!

[benoit-girard]

I read it, added a bit of text where I thought it was necessary, but cannot help on the excellent questions you raised.

[oliviaguest]

I think there is a bug. The bot says I am assigned as editor, but the dashboard doesn't reflect that.

[xuanxu]

Fixed! I'm not sure why it was not updated but I'll keep an eye on the logs to check if it happens again.

[khinsen]

Where should we publish author guidelines etc.? Right now it's on the "about" page of the Web site. That's not really a good for so much information, in my opinion. We should have multiple pages for documentation. JOSS uses readthedocs.com. Should we adopt it as well? I have no experience with readthedocs from the publisher's perspective.

[oliviaguest]

Fixed! I'm not sure why that it was not updated but I'll keep an eye on the logs to check if it happens again.

oh, thank you! ☺️

[oliviaguest]

Where should we publish author guidelines etc.? Right now it's on the "about" page of the Web site. That's not really a good for so much information, in my opinion. We should have multiple pages for documentation. JOSS uses readthedocs.com. Should we adopt it as well? I have no experience with readthedocs from the publisher's perspective.

I am really not sure at all. I have never used either except to read things. @arfon @danielskatz (anybody else of course also feel free to jump in) do you have any feedback on this point? Or did you just select it because it just makes sense/as default choice?

[arfon]

I am really not sure at all. I have never used either except to read things. @arfon @danielskatz (anybody else of course also feel free to jump in) do you have any feedback on this point? Or did you just select it because it just makes sense/as default choice?

I like readthedocs because you can author docs in Markdown or Restructured Text and store them in a repository: https://github.com/openjournals/joss/tree/main/docs

[khinsen]

I set up readthedocs for our site repository: https://resciencec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

For now what you see there are the JOSS docs, which @xuanxu copied over. I'll replace that with our own material.

My first impressions of readthedocs are positive. It works as advertised, and it's easy enough to use. For now, I am the only maintainer (not good), but I can add you all if you wish, assuming you have an account on readthedocs (you can sign up with your GitHub account, which is rather straightforward).

[khinsen]

Revision done. Please have a look at https://resciencec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html and tell me what I got wrong or missed in the revision.

Of course the open questions are still open. Search for "[color=red]" in the author guidelines.

[oliviaguest]

Thank you all! What are we working on at the moment? Can I help with anything specific?

[rougier]

I think we should have a meeting soon to decide on the roadmap for using the new website.