Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
76 lines (64 loc) · 4.84 KB

agenda.md

File metadata and controls

76 lines (64 loc) · 4.84 KB
Raw

February 18th Meeting

tags: Templates Meeting

:::info

  • Location: Zoom
  • Date: Feb 18, 2022 12:00 PM (EST)

:::

Notes

1. The Carpentries (TC) connection! Woohoo!

  • 👆 Figure out a fast track review for these
  • Capture in the metadata - capture their internal reviewers, editorial check might be all that we need?
  • How to collect metadata of review process from the carpentries lab?
  • Do we need at least one reviewer? Do a quick soft review?
  • From a tech/submission standpoint the capentries submits should still have to go through the same review process.
  • Have one of our editors go through (30-60 minutes) and review their submits
  • We don't want a double standard, but we do want a quick review process since they've already been vetted
  • What form would a fast track review take?
  • The editor essentially does the review, make sure there's nothing missing for our specific requirements
  • The Carpentries already has a fairly robust review so makes sense to just have editor do a quick review - you assign yourself as the reviewer/editor and still go through the checklist
  • Thinking about reviewers now...maybe we have The Carpentries community identify one/maybe two reviewer(s) to do a JOSE review
  • In summary: for each paper in particular - when TC passes over paper they also nominate a reviewer.
  • Like the idea of adding reviewers from TC community

2. The Intermediate Earth Analytics Online Textbook

  • #131
  • Issue with license/it's not that thorough of a work/reviewer took a look and felt like this was too big of a project with too many errors to be reviewed and back out. What do we do?
  • Is revenue for a course a deal breaker?
  • Not really, not a criterion that would disqualify something
  • It sounds like two problems (should we even review based on the license type? Given the size of the work should we review?)
  • Because there is so much work needed to be done it sounds like a reject because by the end of the review it sounds like it might be a different work entirely based on the current quality of the work.
  • A book should be published as a book, not a paper. A book needs an ISBN not a DOI.
  • Reject because this is a book
  • 👆 can self publish and get a DOI if that's what they want, but it's just out of scope for JOSE
  • We just can't ask people to review textbooks
  • Major issues: If it's missing a substantial part we should reject it until it comes back with major issues fixed.
  • We are in agreement that this submission should be rejected
  • How do we reject graciously? Editorial team met to see if there was any way forward and unfortunately we weren't able to see a way forward with this publication. It does not appear to be the right fit for JOSE.

3. Non-Commercial License Policy

  • Sometimes institutions have specific types of licenses that are acceptable
  • As long as it is an open-source license JOSS is agnostic to it
  • Maybe adopt a policy of recommending but not requiring

4. Editorial Bot is Changing

  • Has not hit JOSS yet
  • Arfon did some webinars for JOSS editors so they are aware of changing - if he recorded we should send out to JOSE
  • It's mostly the same bot, just called editorial bot instead of whedon
  • The main difference is related to checklist generation for reviewers
  • You don't have to be added as a collaborator anymore to make comments during review process
  • Doesn't drop reviewers after two weeks of not accepting review request
  • Straight forward handling of branches is also new
  • Submitter can indicate branch, editorial bot then knows to check that branch for everything - Bot will remember

5. Parting Thoughts

  • Maybe this is a time that works generally for people, so maybe we could make this a standing meeting.
  • Make this a regular (maybe third Friday of the month at 12PM)
  • Maybe next step is to figure out how can we publicize JOSE a bit more - what strategies should we be thinking about?
  • Are there conferences we are going to where we can pub JOSE?
  • Bioinformatics Open Source Conference is coming up, Jason is going, would like to be able to pub
  • SciPy is happening and Kyle is planning to attend, could pub JOSE there
  • Create a standard blurb/slides about JOSE that we can share at these events?
  • Have a free 15/30 minutes to work on JOSE things and you aren't editing right now? Work on the blurb/slide deck in Google Slides.
  • Kyle will share Lightning talk he gave about JOSE in 2018 in Slack
  • Could be a zoom meeting/authors forum/YouTube video posted somewhere?
  • There is a large space of educators that have no idea that JOSE exists and that they could be publishing here
  • Should we update some sort of expectations for the editors? (every two weeks check-in on your reviewers)
  • Once a month check-in is the minimum, whether it be the meeting, or a ping on slack.
  • Should also send to the groups.io