[REVIEW]: KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology

[whedon]

Submitting author: @shawnbanasick (Shawn Banasick)
Repository: https://github.com/shawnbanasick/kade
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @alexhanna
Reviewer: @davekinkead
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2649145

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03aa8811938551809c37394c4b97869c"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03aa8811938551809c37394c4b97869c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03aa8811938551809c37394c4b97869c/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/03aa8811938551809c37394c4b97869c)

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

@davekinkead, 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/joss-reviews/invitations

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

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @davekinkead

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS 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 JOSS 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 (@shawnbanasick) 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)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @davekinkead it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[davekinkead]

@alexhanna @shawnbanasick outstanding review issues raised here https://github.com/shawnbanasick/kade/issues

I've only been able to review the software on MacOS (demo works as per readme) so can't comment to its functionality on Windows or Linux.

[davekinkead]

@alexhanna all review issues have been addressed - I'm happy to accept this paper noting I've only been able to test the software on OSX.

[alexhanna]

Thanks @davekinkead! Happy to accept this then.

[alexhanna]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

[alexhanna]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/104973239600600408 is OK
- 10.1177/1558689815610998 is OK
- 10.1007/s11116-010-9315-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s11528-018-0314-5 is OK
- 10.4135/9781446251911 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[alexhanna]

You'll need to get a DOI for your repository, @shawnbanasick. You'll need to create an archive (on Zenodo, figshare, or somewhere else, if you haven't already) and post the archive DOI here.

[shawnbanasick]

Thanks @alexhanna for your help. The archive doi is 10.5281/zenodo.2649145

[alexhanna]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2649145 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2649145 is the archive.

[alexhanna]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#639

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#639, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

OK DOIs

- 10.1177/104973239600600408 is OK
- 10.1177/1558689815610998 is OK
- 10.1007/s11116-010-9315-8 is OK
- 10.1007/s11528-018-0314-5 is OK
- 10.4135/9781446251911 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[alexhanna]

Hi @openjournals/joss-eics, this is ready for acceptance.

[danielskatz]

Thanks for reviewing @davekinkead and for editing @alexhanna

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.01360 joss-papers#641
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01360/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01360/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01360/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

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