JOSS paper #401
JOSS paper #401
Conversation
|
This looks GREAT! Nice work @simonpcouch !! |
|
Much appreciated, @beanumber! Will get started on these edits right now. |
|
Super helpful, thank you. :-) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great stuff, @simonpcouch! I added a few suggestions and my thoughts.
|
Thank you, @ismayc! Apologies for the delay, been away for a bit. Will add your remaining revisions now! |
|
v1.0.0 is on CRAN! Yippee!🎊 This puts in a good position to move forward with the JOSS paper. Wanted to make sure all authors are on board with this draft before submitting to JOSS—if you're happy with where the paper is at, could you thumbs up this comment? cc @andrewpbray, @ismayc, @echasnovski, @beanumber, @mine-cetinkaya-rundel Much appreciated, yall.🙂 |
|
Great work @simonpcouch ! Thanks for all you've put into this! |
Whedon looks for a `paper.md` or `paper.tex` in the repo, and errors if it finds both
|
Okay, submitted! Merged earlier than I would a feature as JOSS requires that the paper draft is on the default branch—I'll plan on tagging a GitHub-only v1.0.1 release if the paper is accepted. :-) |
|
This pull request has been automatically locked. If you believe you have found a related problem, please file a new issue (with a reprex: https://reprex.tidyverse.org) and link to this issue. |
Hi all! @andrewpbray, @ismayc, @echasnovski, @beanumber, @mine-cetinkaya-rundel
After these last two active PRs are addressed in the coming weeks, we hope to submit v1.0.0 to CRAN. After that, we hope to submit a short paper on infer to JOSS. I’ve PRed a draft to
figs/paper—edits/suggestions are more than welcome. JOSS papers are usually pretty minimal, so there’s not a ton of content here.Submission guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html
Review checklist: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_checklist.html
Review criteria: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
Some recent R package papers (with links to the GH issue where the reviews take place):
If folks have a moment, I’d especially appreciate an eye for whether the “Underlying Principles” section speaks well to the big ideas of the package, as a contributor who was not around at the very beginning of the project.:slightly_smiling_face: