[PRE REVIEW]: RCzechia: Spatial Objects of the Czech Republic

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @jlacko (Jindra Lacko)
Repository: https://github.com/jlacko/RCzechia
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v1.10.0
Editor: @martinfleis
Reviewers: @nickbearman, @paleolimbot
Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/28cb98d1d05835ef1e54466c29dc46ab"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/28cb98d1d05835ef1e54466c29dc46ab/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/28cb98d1d05835ef1e54466c29dc46ab/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/28cb98d1d05835ef1e54466c29dc46ab)

Author instructions

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

@jlacko if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

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

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.20 s (347.4 files/s, 20014.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                               55            555            825           1375
Markdown                         4            163              0            283
TeX                              1             27              0            205
YAML                             4             24             11            107
Dockerfile                       1             11             10             53
HTML                             1              1              0             15
Bourne Shell                     1              1              2              8
JSON                             2              0              0              2
Rmd                              1            100            255              0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            70            882           1103           2048
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1106

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1038/s41598-021-02545-z is OK
- 10.25225/jvb.21016 is OK
- 10.32614/RJ-2018-009 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02948 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.4317946 is OK
- 10.1007/s10109-020-00336-0 is OK
- 10.2307/1218258 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[arfon]

@editorialbot query scope

👋 @jlacko – thanks for your submission to JOSS. Because this library looks limited to downloading and plotting spatial data, it may not be in scope for us. I'm going to ask our editorial team to give their input – we should have an answer for you in the next week or two.

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[jlacko]

Thank you for your consideration; I will wait for instructions.

Two comments only:

• the package does indeed serve spatial data (plus wraps a geocoding and a reverse geocoding API), plotting is a common and a basic use case - which is why I focused my sample code on it - but far from the only one. Significant effort has been put to curating and aligning the data served.
• a functionally close package by our northern neighbors has been published a while back in JOSS / rgugik https://www.theoj.org/joss-papers/joss.02948/10.21105.joss.02948.pdf which led me to believe RCzechia might be relevant for JOSS as well.

Of course no two packages are exactly alike, and editorial policy evolves, so this may not be the case (anymore).

[arfon]

Thanks for your feedback @jlacko – this package has passed the scope review. We're currently managing a large backlog of submissions and the editor most appropriate for your area is already rather busy.

For now, we will need to waitlist this paper and process it as the queue reduces. Thanks for your patience!

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @timtroendle as editor

👋 @timtroendle – would you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[arfon]

@editorialbot invite @martinfleis as editor

👋 @martinfleis – on reflection I think this might be a better fit for you than @timtroendle. Would you be willing to edit this submission for us?

@timtroendle – I'll invite you on #4974 (comment) instead 😸

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[jlacko]

Thank you @arfon for considering my article. There is no rush, I will be happy to have it processed as time & resources allow.

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @martinfleis is now the editor

[martinfleis]

Hi @jlacko, I'll be editing your submission. If you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list). Thanks!

[martinfleis]

Hi, @gsapijaszko and @ccamara, would you be willing to help out here and review this submission for JOSS? Thank you!

[jlacko]

Thank you @martinfleis for sending out the review invitations; I have looked thru the list of people who have agreed to review for JOSS, but I am afraid I was not too familiar with any of them; especially going by the github usernames.

[martinfleis]

@jlacko no worries, thank you.

[martinfleis]

Hi @nickbearman, and @paleolimbot, would you be willing to review this JOSS submission? It is not a large package so it should be quite straightforward from your side. Thank you!

[nickbearman]

Hi @martinfleis in principle yes, but I have a question.

This submission is an R library that provides spatial data for the Czech Republic. Given that it only provides data, does it count as research software?

From: https://joss.theoj.org/about
Scope & submission requirements

JOSS publishes articles about research software. This definition includes software that: solves complex modeling problems in a scientific context (physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, social science, neuroscience, engineering); supports the functioning of research instruments or the execution of research experiments; extracts knowledge from large data sets; offers a mathematical library; or similar.

So does it qualify? I had a quick look in issues, but couldn't see anything relevant. My interpretation would be that it's only data, so it's not software, so doesn't qualify but I don't know if that is consistent with the journal's aims.

But Dyba, K., & Nowosad, J. (2021). rgugik: Search and Retrieve Spatial Data from the Polish
108 Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(59),
109 2948. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02948 is already published here, which is kind of similar.

Comments welcome :-)

Thanks!

[martinfleis]

Hi @nickbearman, this is a good point. After the submission the paper has been flagged as possibly out of scope but the editorial team internally agreed that it is wihtin the scope as @arfon mentions in #5000 (comment). In my understanding, the package itself does not contain the data but is a wrapper around various sources to provide an R interface to the data portal, similarly to the package from you linked.

So from this perspective, the JOSS considers it within scope. If that is okay with you, I'll assign you as a reviewer.

[nickbearman]

Thanks @martinfleis , I'd not seen that. Yes, happy to review

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot add @nickbearman as reviewer

@nickbearman Thanks! The discussion on scope is not public so it may be confusing, sorry about that! I'll initiate the review itself once we have a second reviewer. Until then, there's nothing to do from your side.

[paleolimbot]

I'm happy to review! Thanks for the invite!

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot add @paleolimbot as reviewer

@paleolimbot thanks! once the bot starts reacting, I'll start the review (that'll open another issue and tag you all)

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @martinfleis, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

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

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

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

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

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

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

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

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

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

# Set a value for archive
@editorialbot set 10.21105/zenodo.12345 as archive

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

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

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

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

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

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot add @nickbearman as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@nickbearman added to the reviewers list!

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot add @paleolimbot as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@paleolimbot added to the reviewers list!

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot start review

[martinfleis]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #5082.