my package

[lwasser]

Submitting Author: your name ( )
All current maintainers: (@github_handle1, @github_handle2)
Package Name: yourPackageName
One-Line Description of Package: Description here
Repository Link:
Version submitted:
Editor-in-Chief: @chayadecacao
Editor: Pending
Reviewers: @chayadecacao
Archive: TBD
JOSS DOI: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories.
  Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
  scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data processing/munging
  • Data deposition
  • Data validation and testing
  • Data visualization¹
  • Workflow automation
  • Citation management and bibliometrics
  • Scientific software wrappers
  • Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• Geospatial
• Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:

• Astropy: Link coming soon to standards
• Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

• For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

  • If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• uses an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI:

Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the author guide.
• I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track
  submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
  and editors to fill this out.

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

Footnotes

1. Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩

[pyosbot]

Hey @lwasser 👋 welcome to pyOpenSci’s scientific Python peer review process!

We’ve seen your message. Someone from our editorial team will get back to you within the next week about this submission.
In the meantime, feel free to check out our packaging guide or feel free to ask questions on our Discourse forum.

[pyosbot]

The submission template is missing the following values: version-submitted, target-repository, author-handle

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign @lwasser as eic

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot help

[pyosbot]

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

# List all available commands
@pyosbot help

# Show our community Code of Conduct and Guidelines
@pyosbot code of conduct

# Allow editors to move the review to EiC checks
@pyosbot assign eic

# Post the editor response template
@pyosbot editor response

# Replies to package accepted
@pyosbot package accepted

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

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

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

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot add @reviewer-login as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot remove @reviewer-login from reviewers

# Label issue with: 2/seeking-reviewers. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned
@pyosbot seeking reviewers

# Label issue with: 3/reviewer(s)-assigned. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned, 2/seeking-reviewers
@pyosbot reviewers assigned

# Label issue with: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned, 2/seeking-reviewers, 3/reviewer(s)-assigned
@pyosbot reviews are in

# Label issue with: 5/awaiting-reviewer-response. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned, 2/seeking-reviewers, 3/reviewer(s)-assigned, 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot author response complete

# Label issue with: 7/under-joss-review. Remove labels: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot begin joss

# Label issue with: 9/joss-approved. Remove labels: 7/under-joss-review
@pyosbot joss approved

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

# Set a value for archive
@pyosbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7158585 as archive

# Set a value for eic
@pyosbot set @username as eic

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

# Perform checks on the repository
# Optionally, it can be run on a non-default branch 
@pyosbot check repository
@pyosbot check repository from branch custom-branch-name

[lwasser]

@pyosbot set @lwasser as eic

[pyosbot]

Done! eic is now @lwasser

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add assignee @lwasser

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign eic

[pyosbot]

Editor in Chief checks

Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you
to work on them before the review process begins.

Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements
below.

• Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
  • The package imports properly into a standard Python environment import package.
• Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
  • User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
  • Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
  • API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
• Core GitHub repository Files
  • README The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions.
  • Contributing File The package has a CONTRIBUTING.md file that details how to install and contribute to the package.
  • Code of Conduct The package has a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file.
  • License The package has an OSI approved license.
    NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
• Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the YAML header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
• Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
• Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
• Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

• Initial onboarding survey was filled out
  We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. 🙌
  Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. 🙌

---

---

Editor comments

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @lwasser as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @lwasser is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot seeking reviewers

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @chayadecacao as reviewer

[pyosbot]

@chayadecacao added to the reviewers list!

[lwasser]

@pyosbot reviewers assigned

[lwasser]

@pyosbot start prereview

[pyosbot]

Editor in Chief checks

Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you
to work on them before the review process begins.

Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements
below.

• Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
  • The package imports properly into a standard Python environment import package.
• Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
  • User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
  • Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
  • API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
• Core GitHub repository Files
  • README The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions.
  • Contributing File The package has a CONTRIBUTING.md file that details how to install and contribute to the package.
  • Code of Conduct The package has a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file.
  • License The package has an OSI approved license.
    NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
• Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the YAML header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
• Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
• Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
• Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

• Initial onboarding survey was filled out
  We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. 🙌
  Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. 🙌

---

---

Editor comments

[lwasser]

@pyosbot start prereview

[pyosbot]

Editor in Chief checks

Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you
to work on them before the review process begins.

Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements
below.

• Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
  • The package imports properly into a standard Python environment import package.
• Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
  • User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
  • Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
  • API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
• Core GitHub repository Files
  • README The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions.
  • Contributing File The package has a CONTRIBUTING.md file that details how to install and contribute to the package.
  • Code of Conduct The package has a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file.
  • License The package has an OSI approved license.
    NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
• Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the YAML header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
• Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
• Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
• Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

• Initial onboarding survey was filled out
  We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. 🙌
  Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. 🙌

---

---

Editor comments

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot remove editor

[pyosbot]

Editor removed!

[lwasser]

@pyosbot help

[pyosbot]

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

# List all available commands
@pyosbot help

# Show our community Code of Conduct and Guidelines
@pyosbot code of conduct

# Posts the pre-review template checklist and changes the label to 0/pre-review-checks
@pyosbot start prereview

# Post the editor response template
@pyosbot editor response

# Replies to package accepted
@pyosbot package accepted

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

# Assign a GitHub user to the editor field of the issue and to the issue itself. Also update issue labels.
@pyosbot assign @username as editor

# Removes the current editor both from the issue header editor: field and from an assignee on the issue.
@pyosbot remove editor

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot add @reviewer-login as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot remove @reviewer-login from reviewers

# Adds the seeking-reviewers label to the issue and removes editor-assigned
@pyosbot seeking reviewers

# Label issue with: 3/reviewer(s)-assigned. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned, 2/seeking-reviewers
@pyosbot reviewers assigned

# Label issue with: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned, 2/seeking-reviewers, 3/reviewer(s)-assigned
@pyosbot reviews are in

# Label issue with: 5/awaiting-reviewer-response. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned, 2/seeking-reviewers, 3/reviewer(s)-assigned, 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot author response complete

# Label issue with: 7/under-joss-review. Remove labels: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot begin joss

# Label issue with: 9/joss-approved. Remove labels: 7/under-joss-review
@pyosbot joss approved

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

# Set a value for archive
@pyosbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7158585 as archive

# Set a value for eic
@pyosbot set @username as eic

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

# Perform checks on the repository
# Optionally, it can be run on a non-default branch 
@pyosbot check repository
@pyosbot check repository from branch custom-branch-name

# Triggers a GitHub action which open a pull request to add the accepted package and all review contributors to our website.
@pyosbot update website

[lwasser]

@pyosbot update website

[lwasser]

@pyosbot update website

[lwasser]

@pyosbot update website

[lwasser]

@pyosbot you rock

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot remind @lwasser in 1 day

[pyosbot]

Reminder set for @lwasser in 1 day

[lwasser]

@pyosbot package accepted

[pyosbot]

---

🎉 yourPackageName has been approved by pyOpenSci! Thank you for submitting yourPackageName and many thanks to for reviewing this package! 😸

Author Wrap Up Tasks

There are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:

• Activate Zenodo watching the repo if you haven't already done so.
• Tag and create a release to create a Zenodo version and DOI.
• Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md of . The badge should be [![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number).
• Please fill out the post-review survey. All maintainers and reviewers should fill this out.

It looks like you would like to submit this package to JOSS. Here are the next steps:

• Once the JOSS issue is opened for the package, we strongly suggest that you subscribe to issue updates. This will allow you to continue to update the issue labels on this review as it goes through the JOSS process.
• Login to the JOSS website and fill out the JOSS submission form using your Zenodo DOI. When you fill out the form, be sure to mention and link to the approved pyOpenSci review. JOSS will tag your package for expedited review if it is already pyOpenSci approved.
• Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check).
• Once the package is approved by JOSS, you will be given instructions by JOSS about updating the citation information in your README file.
• When the JOSS review is complete, add a comment to your review in the pyOpenSci software-review repo here that it has been approved by JOSS. An editor will then add the JOSS-approved label to this issue.

🎉 Congratulations! You are now published with both JOSS and pyOpenSci! 🎉

Editor Final Checks

Please complete the final steps to wrap up this review. Editor, please do the following:

• Make sure that the maintainers filled out the post-review survey
• Invite the maintainers to submit a blog post highlighting their package. Feel free to use / adapt language found in this comment to help guide the author.
• Change the status tag of the issue to 6/pyOS-approved6 🚀🚀🚀.
• Invite the package maintainer(s) and both reviewers to slack if they wish to join.
• If the author submits to JOSS, please continue to update the labels for JOSS on this issue until the author is accepted (do not remove the 6/pyOS-approved label). Once accepted add the label 9/joss-approved to the issue. Skip this check if the package is not submitted to JOSS.
• If the package is JOSS-accepted please add the JOSS doi to the YAML at the top of the issue.

---

If you have any feedback for us about the review process please feel free to share it here. We are always looking to improve our process and documentation in the peer-review-guide.