[PRE REVIEW]: saperlipopette, a risk-free playground for learning more Git

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @maelle (Maëlle Salmon)
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci-training/saperlipopette
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: Pending
Managing EiC: Lorena Barba

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/0bc994f7c0ce525563eb4151d3da986d"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/0bc994f7c0ce525563eb4151d3da986d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/0bc994f7c0ce525563eb4151d3da986d/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/0bc994f7c0ce525563eb4151d3da986d)

Author instructions

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

@maelle if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSE 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.18457383 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.18457425 is OK
- 10.70849/IJSCI is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.18457460 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.18457484 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Git in Practice
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Oh Shit, Git!?!

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.32614/cran.package.gert may be a valid DOI for title: gert: Simple Git Client for R
- 10.32614/cran.package.usethis may be a valid DOI for title: usethis: Automate Package and Project Setup

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.03 s (4165.0 files/s, 144241.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                              107            373            445           2315
Markdown                        25            144              3            698
PO File                          2             92            124            208
YAML                             6             36             16            198
TeX                              1              8              0             79
Rmd                              3             70            136             42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           144            723            724           3540
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

122	Maëlle Salmon

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on December 15, 2023

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	34
Forks	4
GitHub contributors	1
Releases	3
Total issues	29
Total pull requests	23
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	7

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1455

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

🔴 Failed to discover a State of the field section in paper

🔴 Failed to discover a Software design section in paper

🔴 Failed to discover a Research impact statement section in paper

🔴 Failed to discover an AI usage disclosure section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

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

[maelle]

Thank you! As a reminder, saperlipopette went through rOpenSci software peer-review: ropensci/software-review#754

cc co-author @yabellini

[labarba]

hi @maelle 👋 – i saw your note in the submission form about the previous review at rOpenSci. JOSE does not have an existing agreement with rOpenSci regarding peer review, I'm afraid.

[maelle]

Thank you! I saw this sentence in the docs https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/editing.html?highlight=ropensci#finding-reviewers

JOSE papers have to have a minimum of two reviewers per submission, except for papers that have previously been peer-reviewed via rOpenSci

But I understand if this is out-of-date, obviously. 😸

[labarba]

Because it could be me who is out of date, I searched through my email and all my disparate note apps for "rOpenSci" and did not find any clues 😬
So I conclude this must be a remnant of the initial port of the docs from JOSS that has remained unnoticed all these years?

[geritwagner]

Hi @labarba, I’d be happy to help as a reviewer. I’ve worked on Git education before, so this submission seems like a good fit.

[labarba]

Thank you @geritwagner, that's great! We need to assign a handling editor, and then you can be added here. Stay tuned.