Submitting author: @pschloss (Patrick D Schloss)
Repository: https://github.com/riffomonas/reproducible_research
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @tracykteal
Reviewers: @jhollist

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @pschloss. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@pschloss if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @labarba (Lorena A. Barba)
Repository: https://github.com/barbagroup/CFDPython
Version: v1.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @nicoguaro, @petebachant
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1484512

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/cb16c16aa3b4e761008ddf9440fe504b"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/cb16c16aa3b4e761008ddf9440fe504b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/cb16c16aa3b4e761008ddf9440fe504b/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/cb16c16aa3b4e761008ddf9440fe504b)

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) 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

@nicoguaro & @petebachant, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

Review checklist for @nicoguaro

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@labarba) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adotp it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @petebachant

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@labarba) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adotp it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arfon

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arfon. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arfon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @gboeing (Geoff Boeing)
Repository: https://github.com/gboeing/pynamical
Version: 0.1.2
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @drvinceknight

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @gboeing. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@gboeing if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @jhamrick (Jessica B. Hamrick)
Repository: https://github.com/jupyter/nbgrader
Version: v0.5.4
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @MattForshaw

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @jhamrick. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@jhamrick if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @wrightaprilm (April Wright)
Repository: https://github.com/wrightaprilm/treesiftr
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewer: @ethanwhite, @rachelss
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2541824

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/82b5b8c6223ec0735602bbf927045913"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/82b5b8c6223ec0735602bbf927045913/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/82b5b8c6223ec0735602bbf927045913/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/82b5b8c6223ec0735602bbf927045913)

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) 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

@ethanwhite & @rachelss, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @juanklopper know.

Review checklist for @ethanwhite

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@wrightaprilm) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @rachelss

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@wrightaprilm) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arokem (Ariel Rokem)
Repository: https://github.com/arokem/scipy-optimize
Version: 0.1
Editor: @labarba
Reviewer: @oliviaguest, @ThomasA
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1304473

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/25305d3b2e88f1b1d0f98b762ffdca03"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/25305d3b2e88f1b1d0f98b762ffdca03/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/25305d3b2e88f1b1d0f98b762ffdca03/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/25305d3b2e88f1b1d0f98b762ffdca03)

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) 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

@oliviaguest & @ThomasA, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba know.

Review checklist for @oliviaguest

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (0.1)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arokem) made substantial contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the module?
• 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

Pedagogy / Instructional design

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @ThomasA

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (0.1)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arokem) made substantial contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the module?
• 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

Pedagogy / Instructional design

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/fidgit
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @arfon

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arfon. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arfon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @kmader (Kevin Mader)
Repository: https://github.com/kmader/Quantitative-Big-Imaging-2018
Version: v2018
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewer: @arokem, @ThomasA
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/473509727717e744423e8f3358af4832"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/473509727717e744423e8f3358af4832/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/473509727717e744423e8f3358af4832/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/473509727717e744423e8f3358af4832)

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) 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

@arokem & @ThomasA, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @katyhuff know.

Review checklist for @arokem

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v2018)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kmader) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @ThomasA

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v2018)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kmader) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @labarba (Lorena A. Barba)
Repository: https://github.com/barbagroup/CFDPython
Version: v1.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @nicoguaro, @petebachant

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @labarba. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@labarba if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @DamienIrving (Damien Irving)
Repository: https://github.com/carpentrieslab/python-aos-lesson
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @willingc
Reviewer: @darothen, @RobTheOceanographer
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2546005

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/a996f4674ee2924ce4fc15bf7d1f8672"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/a996f4674ee2924ce4fc15bf7d1f8672/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/a996f4674ee2924ce4fc15bf7d1f8672/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/a996f4674ee2924ce4fc15bf7d1f8672)

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) 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

@darothen & @RobTheOceanographer, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @willingc know.

Review checklist for @darothen

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@DamienIrving) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @RobTheOceanographer

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@DamienIrving) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @jhamrick (Jessica B. Hamrick)
Repository: https://github.com/jupyter/nbgrader
Version: v0.5.4
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @MattForshaw, @jedbrown
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2532780

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/d86e078cd3990138cc6e630331410d29"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/d86e078cd3990138cc6e630331410d29/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/d86e078cd3990138cc6e630331410d29/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/d86e078cd3990138cc6e630331410d29)

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) 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

@MattForshaw, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba know.

Review checklist for @MattForshaw

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.5.4)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jhamrick) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @jedbrown

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.5.4)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jhamrick) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @mroman42 (Mario Román)
Repository: https://github.com/mroman42/mikrokosmos
Version: v0.8.0
Editor: @RobertTalbert
Reviewer: @aj2duncan, @MattForshaw
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1470226

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8324e9aa1019760e987673f55e335f34)

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) 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

@aj2duncan, @MattForshaw please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @RobertTalbert know.

Review checklist for @aj2duncan

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.8.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mroman42) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @MattForshaw

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.8.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@mroman42) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arfon

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arfon. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arfon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @drvinceknight (Vincent Knight)
Repository: https://github.com/drvinceknight/Nashpy
Version: 0.0.14
Editor: @RobertTalbert
Reviewer: Pending

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @drvinceknight. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@drvinceknight if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @gboeing (Geoff Boeing)
Repository: https://github.com/gboeing/pynamical
Version: 0.1.2
Editor: @labarba
Reviewer: @drvinceknight, @sdross0
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1294299

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8e0d222df1d4e63dcf61bebcb643714a"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8e0d222df1d4e63dcf61bebcb643714a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8e0d222df1d4e63dcf61bebcb643714a/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8e0d222df1d4e63dcf61bebcb643714a)

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) 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

@drvinceknight, @sdross0, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba know.

Review checklist for @drvinceknight

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (0.1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@gboeing) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @sdross0

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (0.1.2)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@gboeing) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @arfon

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arfon. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arfon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @pschloss (Patrick D Schloss)
Repository: https://github.com/riffomonas/reproducible_research
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @tracykteal
Reviewer: @jhollist
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1404230

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/62515e587e897f867e0746e79bc3ab36"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/62515e587e897f867e0746e79bc3ab36/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/62515e587e897f867e0746e79bc3ab36/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/62515e587e897f867e0746e79bc3ab36)

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) 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

@jhollist , please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @tracykteal know.

Review checklist for @jhollist

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@pschloss) made substantial contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the module?
• 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

Pedagogy / Instructional design

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arfon

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arfon. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arfon if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @mroman42 (Mario Román)
Repository: https://github.com/mroman42/mikrokosmos
Version: v0.8.0
Editor: @RobertTalbert
Reviewers: @aj2duncan, @MattForshaw

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @mroman42. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@mroman42 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @lechten (Jens Lechtenbörger)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal
Version: v3.0.2
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewers: @jrosen48, @markgalassi

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @lechten. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@lechten if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @lgroves6 (Leah Groves)
Repository: https://github.com/lgroves6/IGTTutorialWebsite
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewer: @jcfr, @fedorov
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ac66d8b1a941caee5dd8030929b1f3a"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ac66d8b1a941caee5dd8030929b1f3a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ac66d8b1a941caee5dd8030929b1f3a/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/6ac66d8b1a941caee5dd8030929b1f3a)

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) 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

@jcfr & @fedorov, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @juanklopper know.

Review checklist for @jcfr

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lgroves6) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @fedorov

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lgroves6) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @lechten (Jens Lechtenbörger)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/oer/emacs-reveal
Version: v3.0.3
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewer: @jrosen48, @markgalassi
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3357438

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/51d19b9c42e3115a548acd4a1cad377b)

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) 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

@jrosen48 & @markgalassi, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @katyhuff know.

Review checklist for @jrosen48

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: v3.0.3
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lechten) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @markgalassi

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: v3.0.3
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lechten) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/85bc1f3a96f591a99f49c8e89bb35957"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/85bc1f3a96f591a99f49c8e89bb35957/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/85bc1f3a96f591a99f49c8e89bb35957/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/85bc1f3a96f591a99f49c8e89bb35957)

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) 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, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arfon) made substantial contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the module?
• 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

Pedagogy / Instructional design

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @darribas (Daniel Arribas-Bel)
Repository: https://github.com/darribas/gds18
Version: v4.0
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @lheagy, @jsta

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @darribas. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@darribas if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @arm61 (Andrew McCluskey)
Repository: https://github.com/arm61/pylj
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @labarba
Reviewer: @shivupa, @TJFord
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1312617

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/58daa1a1a564dc8e0f99ffcdae20eb1d"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/58daa1a1a564dc8e0f99ffcdae20eb1d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/58daa1a1a564dc8e0f99ffcdae20eb1d/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/58daa1a1a564dc8e0f99ffcdae20eb1d)

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) 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

@shivupa & @TJFord, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba know.

Review checklist for @shivupa

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arm61) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @TJFord

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arm61) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @joonro (Joon Ro)
Repository: https://github.com/joonro/Org-Coursepack
Version: v1.2.0
Editor: @csev
Reviewer: @pschloss, @gregcaporaso
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2539667

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b79c2f06fe0c85c5389086bec9b8287c)

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) 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

@pschloss & @gregcaporaso, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @csev know.

Review checklist for @pschloss

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: v1.2.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@joonro) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @gregcaporaso

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: v1.2.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@joonro) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @rambasnet (Ram Basnet)
Repository: https://github.com/rambasnet/thinkpythonnotebooks
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @AllenDowney, @mcburton

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @rambasnet. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@rambasnet if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @bryanwweber (Bryan W. Weber)
Repository: https://github.com/bryanwweber/thermostate
Version: v0.4.1
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @william-pfalzgraff, @scls19fr

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @bryanwweber. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@bryanwweber if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/99a5c270ef916359e3159e65d2e78598"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/99a5c270ef916359e3159e65d2e78598/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/99a5c270ef916359e3159e65d2e78598/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/99a5c270ef916359e3159e65d2e78598)

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) 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, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/e271008c0753851ea38f8894b5e9f384"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/e271008c0753851ea38f8894b5e9f384/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/e271008c0753851ea38f8894b5e9f384/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/e271008c0753851ea38f8894b5e9f384)

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) 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, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arfon) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @gregcaporaso (James Gregory Caporaso)
Repository: https://github.com/caporaso-lab/An-Introduction-To-Applied-Bioinformatics/blob/master/paper.md
Version: 0.1.3-dev
Editor: @tracykteal
Reviewers: @AstrobioMike

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @gregcaporaso. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@gregcaporaso if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @bryanwweber (Bryan W. Weber)
Repository: https://github.com/bryanwweber/thermostate
Version: v0.4.1
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @william-pfalzgraff, @scls19fr
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1469771

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/86ddd94292d33a3261a8f1f137a8f9f2"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/86ddd94292d33a3261a8f1f137a8f9f2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/86ddd94292d33a3261a8f1f137a8f9f2/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/86ddd94292d33a3261a8f1f137a8f9f2)

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) 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

@william-pfalzgraff & @scls19fr, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

Review checklist for @william-pfalzgraff

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.4.1)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bryanwweber) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @scls19fr

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.4.1)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@bryanwweber) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @kmader (Kevin Mader)
Repository: https://github.com/kmader/Quantitative-Big-Imaging-2018
Version: v2018
Editor: @katyhuff
Reviewers: @arokem, @ThomasA

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @kmader. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@kmader if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @lwjohnst86 (Luke W. Johnston)
Repository: https://github.com/UofTCoders/rcourse
Version: v2.2.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewer: @jhollist, @MattForshaw
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3240508

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/1a083e69c49c15011f9404dfab9b1ec8)

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) 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

@jhollist & @MattForshaw, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @juanklopper know.

Review checklist for @jhollist

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v2.2.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lwjohnst86) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @MattForshaw

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v2.2.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lwjohnst86) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @lwjohnst86 (Luke W. Johnston)
Repository: https://github.com/UofTCoders/rcourse
Version: v2.1.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewers: @jhollist, @MattForshaw

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @lwjohnst86. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@lwjohnst86 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @labarba (Lorena A. Barba)
Repository: https://github.com/barbagroup/AeroPython
Version: v1.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @weymouth, @Juanlu001
Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1004727.v4

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/b679b34c976beec0bc64807bf087a468)

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) 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

@weymouth & @Juanlu001, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

Review checklist for @weymouth

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v1.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@labarba) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @Juanlu001

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v1.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@labarba) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arm61 (Andrew McCluskey)
Repository: https://github.com/arm61/pylj
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @shivupa, @TJFord

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arm61. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arm61 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @lgroves6 (Leah Groves)
Repository: https://github.com/lgroves6/IGTTutorialWebsite
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewers: @jcfr, @fedorov

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @lgroves6. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@lgroves6 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @wrightaprilm (April Wright)
Repository: https://github.com/wrightaprilm/treesiftr
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @juanklopper
Reviewers: @ethanwhite, @rachelss

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @wrightaprilm. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@wrightaprilm if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @CameronDevine (Cameron Devine)
Repository: https://github.com/CameronDevine/StateMint
Version: 2.0.0
Editor: @moorepants
Reviewers: @chrisdembia, @gboeing

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @CameronDevine. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@CameronDevine if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @darribas (Daniel Arribas-Bel)
Repository: https://github.com/darribas/gds18
Version: v4.1
Editor: @labarba
Reviewer: @lheagy, @jsta
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2650534

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/ab5b87ff724fbdb2fda35a7301eecce9"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/ab5b87ff724fbdb2fda35a7301eecce9/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/ab5b87ff724fbdb2fda35a7301eecce9/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/ab5b87ff724fbdb2fda35a7301eecce9)

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) 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

@lheagy & @jsta, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @labarba know.

Review checklist for @lheagy

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v4.1
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@darribas) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @jsta

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: v4.1
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@darribas) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @DamienIrving (Damien Irving)
Repository: https://github.com/carpentrieslab/python-aos-lesson
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @willingc
Reviewers: @darothen, @RobTheOceanographer

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @DamienIrving. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@DamienIrving if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @labarba (Lorena A. Barba)
Repository: https://github.com/barbagroup/AeroPython
Version: 0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewers: @weymouth, @Juanlu001

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @labarba. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@labarba if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @arokem (Ariel Rokem)
Repository: https://github.com/arokem/scipy-optimize
Version: 0.1
Editor: @labarba
Reviewers: @oliviaguest, @ThomasA

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @arokem. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@arokem if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @joonro (Joon Ro)
Repository: https://github.com/joonro/Org-Coursepack
Version: v1.0.1
Editor: @csev
Reviewers: @pschloss, @gregcaporaso

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSE @joonro. The JOSE editor (shown at the top of this issue) will work with you on this issue to find a reviewer for your submission before creating the main review issue.

@joonro if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread. In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSE and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:

@whedon commands

Submitting author: @CameronDevine (Cameron Devine)
Repository: https://github.com/CameronDevine/StateMint
Version: 2.1.0
Editor: @moorepants
Reviewer: @chrisdembia, @gboeing
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2633330

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/7caec95b5db5c18d8a14cbc42fef7bb7"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/7caec95b5db5c18d8a14cbc42fef7bb7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/7caec95b5db5c18d8a14cbc42fef7bb7/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/7caec95b5db5c18d8a14cbc42fef7bb7)

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) 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

@chrisdembia & @gboeing, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @moorepants know.

Review checklist for @chrisdembia

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: 2.1.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@CameronDevine) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @gboeing

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: 2.1.0
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@CameronDevine) made substantial contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8b2f25b60c4a98f25a0b50951e3b4161"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8b2f25b60c4a98f25a0b50951e3b4161/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8b2f25b60c4a98f25a0b50951e3b4161/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8b2f25b60c4a98f25a0b50951e3b4161)

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) 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, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

DON'T EDIT ME. This is here just to make sure the tests pass.

Submitting author: @gregcaporaso (James Gregory Caporaso)
Repository: https://github.com/caporaso-lab/An-Introduction-To-Applied-Bioinformatics
Version: 0.1.3-dev
Editor: @tracykteal
Reviewer: @AstrobioMike
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1442796

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/c16d09fe816a482881a85e4eed6f7269"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/c16d09fe816a482881a85e4eed6f7269/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/c16d09fe816a482881a85e4eed6f7269/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/c16d09fe816a482881a85e4eed6f7269)

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) 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

@AstrobioMike, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @tracykteal know.

Review checklist for @AstrobioMike

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source for this learning module available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of a standard license? (OSI-approved for code, Creative Commons for content)
• Version: Does the release version given match the repository release (0.1.3-dev)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@gregcaporaso) made visible contributions to the module? Does the full list of authors seem appropriate and complete?

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly stated list of dependencies?
• Usage: Does the documentation explain how someone would adopt the module, and include examples of how to use it?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the module 2) Report issues or problems with the module 3) Seek support

Pedagogy / Instructional design (Work-in-progress: reviewers, please comment!)

• Learning objectives: Does the module make the learning objectives plainly clear? (We don't require explicitly written learning objectives; only that they be evident from content and design.)
• Content scope and length: Is the content substantial for learning a given topic? Is the length of the module appropriate?
• Pedagogy: Does the module seem easy to follow? Does it observe guidance on cognitive load? (working memory limits of 7 +/- 2 chunks of information)
• Content quality: Is the writing of good quality, concise, engaging? Are the code components well crafted? Does the module seem complete?
• Instructional design: Is the instructional design deliberate and apparent? For example, exploit worked-example effects; effective multi-media use; low extraneous cognitive load.

JOSE paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Does the paper clearly state the need for this module and who the target audience is?
• Description: Does the paper describe the learning materials and sequence?
• Does it describe how it has been used in the classroom or other settings, and how someone might adopt it?
• Could someone else teach with this module, given the right expertise?
• Does the paper tell the "story" of how the authors came to develop it, or what their expertise is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Submitting author: @arfon (Arfon Smith)
Repository: http://github.com/arfon/joss
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arfon
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8ffdf32d35ced5738123e120d0fe512b"><img src="http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8ffdf32d35ced5738123e120d0fe512b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8ffdf32d35ced5738123e120d0fe512b/status.svg)](http://jose.theoj.org/papers/8ffdf32d35ced5738123e120d0fe512b)

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) 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, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://jose.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @kyleniemeyer know.

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@arfon) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?